Sanders admits White House’s story about Comey firing has changed, argues it doesn’t matter – ThinkProgress

[ad_1]

During his train wreck of an interview on Hannity on Wednesday night, new Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani explained that the president fired then-FBI director James Comey because Comey refused to publicly announce that Trump “wasn’t a target” of the FBI’s investigation of his campaign.

There’s just one problem. Giuliani’s explanation for Comey’s firing differs from two previous ones that have already been offered by the White House — the official line, which was that Comey mishandled the Hillary Clinton email investigation; and the one Trump offered NBC’s Lester Holt, which was that he fired Comey because he was frustrated with the Russia investigation.

On Thursday, Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was asked to reconcile team Trump’s shifting rationales for Comey’s firing. She responded with the verbal equivalent of the shrug emoji.

“There were a number of reasons that James Comey was fired. The president has named several of them,” Sanders said. “But the bottom line is, the president doesn’t have to justify his decision. The president has the authority to fire and hire, and I think every single day we’ve seen that he made the right decision in firing James Comey.”

Despite what Sanders would have you believe, the White House’s changing story could cause problems for Trump. Part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation pertains to whether Trump obstructed justice when he fired Comey amid an active FBI investigation into his campaign. The answer hinges on Trump’s motivations.

Trump himself has said contradictory things about why he fired Comey. Though he initially admitted he fired him because of the Russia investigation, Trump recently tried to walk that back in a tweet proclaiming that “the worst FBI Director in history, was not fired because of the phony Russia investigation where, by the way, there was NO COLLUSION (except by the Dems)!”

Slippery James Comey, the worst FBI Director in history, was not fired because of the phony Russia investigation where, by the way, there was NO COLLUSION (except by the Dems)!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 18, 2018

In that tweet, Trump did not cite a reason for Comey’s firing. The implication, however, is that Comey’s poor character justified his termination. Giuliani furthered that effort during his interview with Hannity, at one point calling Comey “a very perverted man.”

[ad_2]

Source link

Sarah Sanders waves the white flag on Stormy Daniels – ThinkProgress

[ad_1]

On April 5, President Trump specifically said he had no knowledge of the $130,000 payment Michael Cohen made to Stormy Daniels, and referred all questions back to Cohen. Last night, Rudy Giuliani admitted that Trump had reimbursed Cohen for the $130,000 in a series of payments that completed in 2017.

During Thursday’s White House press briefing, Sarah Sanders was presented with a  very difficult task are explaining how these two things are consistent.

She barely tried.

Sanders initially said that “this was information the president didn’t know at the time but eventually learned.”

But how could Trump not know about the $130,000 payment by Cohen if he had already reimbursed Cohen?

That’s precisely what Sanders was asked next by ABC’s Jonathan Karl. “How could he not have known, he was paying him back?”

“I’m not going to get into those details,” Sanders replied.

This isn’t an answer but an acknowledgement that there is no answer.

CNN’s Jim Acosta gave it another shot. “How can you only be aware of something 10 days to two weeks ago but at the same time be in the process of paying monthly retainers that apparently covered this reimbursement?”

“I can’t get into the details of the ongoing litigation. I would refer you to the President’s outside counsel,” Sanders replied.

Another issue, raised by Acosta and others, was Sanders own statement on March 7, in which she told reporters that she had spoken to the president and he had no knowledge of the payments made to Daniels.

Acosta asked if she was “lying” or if she was “in the dark.”

Sanders said she gave “the best information I had.”

She later acknowledged that the first time she learned that Trump had reimbursed Cohen for the Stormy Daniels payment was when she watched the Rudy Giuliani interview on Hannity last night.

[ad_2]

Source link

Sarah Sanders clumsily dodges difficult question about Trump, Cohen and the Fifth amendment – ThinkProgress

[ad_1]

Donald Trump has a history of bashing those who plead the Fifth.

At a rally in 2016, Trump said, “The mob takes the Fifth. If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth?” and during a debate with former Secretary of State and then-Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, he called pleading the Fifth “disgraceful.”

But now, Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen has invoked the Fifth amendment, using his right not to incriminate himself to secure a temporary stay in a lawsuit filed by adult film actress Stormy Daniels against Trump.

White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was asked about Cohen’s choice to plead the Fifth by a reporter Tuesday, who asked whether Trump stands by his earlier remarks about such a move being disgraceful.

“If I may, I wanted to ask you about something that took place last week involving the president’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen,” the reporter said. “He, in court documents, asserted that he would assert his Fifth Amendment rights in the stormy Daniels lawsuit filed against both him and the president.”

The reporter cited Trump’s earlier comments about the mob pleading the Fifth, adding, “Do those comments apply to Michael Cohen? Does he stand by those comments?”

In response, Sanders only said, “I can’t speak for Michael Cohen.”

The (very short) back and forth is the latest example of how Sanders manages never to answer any questions from the press corps. Asked if Trump stands by his earlier comments, she says only that she can’t speak for Cohen — who even isn’t the person for whom she’s being asked to speak.

Cohen is invoking his Fifth amendment rights in Daniels’ civil lawsuit to avoid negatively impacting an ongoing criminal investigation targeting him in New York. On April 9, Cohen’s home, office and hotel room were raided by the FBI. A special master was recently appointed by the court to review the seized material for potential attorney-client privilege.

In granting the stay of the civil case, the federal judge in California said he believed it was likely Cohen would be indicted soon.

Cohen’s precarious legal position has raised concerns that he might flip on Trump. In a recent Fox and Friends interview, Trump appeared to try to distance himself from Cohen. A recent cover of the National Enquirer, which is owned by a personal friend of Trump and has provided him consistently favorable coverage, trashed Cohen.

[ad_2]

Source link