Renato Mariotti
@renato_mariotti
THREAD: What does the latest @nytimes article about the highly misleading statement crafted by Trump about the Trump Tower meeting tell us about the Mueller investigation?
1/ Today the @nytimes published this piece discussing Mueller’s interest in the highly misleading statement crafted by Trump and his aides about the Trump Tower meeting.
2/ The article is full of interesting tidbits. Perhaps the most bizarre revelation is that some Trump aides can’t understand why Mueller cares about the episode:
Some lawyers and witnesses who have sat in or been briefed on the interviews have puzzled over Mr. Mueller’s interest in the episode. Lying to federal investigators is a crime; lying to the news media is not. For that reason, some of Mr. Trump’s advisers argue that Mr. Mueller has no grounds to ask the president about the statement and say he should refuse to discuss it.
3/ They’re right that lying to the press is generally not a crime. But as I explained in detail in this @thehill piece in August, the episode raises some serious questions. One key question: Why was Trump motivated to craft this statement?
thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/344795-with-one-dictated-statement-trump-may-build-the
4/ As I wrote, “His decision to do so would suggest that he was highly motivated to shape his son's account of the purpose of the meeting ... to hide the truth about the meeting from the public or a desire to influence his son's account of what happened.”
5/ At the time, I raised other questions, one of which is partially answered in this article: “Did [Trump Jr.] object at all to the president's characterization of the meeting in the statement?”
6/ The article explains how the highly misleading statement was written, and notes that Trump insisted on writing the meeting was about adoptions, even though the emails established that the purpose of the meeting was to get dirt on Hillary Clinton from the Russians:
The president supervised the writing of the statement, according to three people familiar with the episode, with input from other White House aides. A fierce debate erupted over how much information the news release should include. Mr. Trump was insistent about including language that the meeting was about Russian adoptions, according to two people with knowledge of the discussion.
7/ The final statement said that they “primarily” discussed adoptions, a word the @nytimes reports Trump Jr. insisted upon. What did he tell his father about what was discussed in that meeting? How did Trump respond? It’s obvious why this would matter to Mueller.
“It was a short introductory meeting,” it read. “I asked Jared and Paul to stop by. We primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children that was active and popular with American families years ago and was since ended by the Russian government, but it was not a campaign issue at that time and there was no follow up.”
8/ The most widely reported detail in the story involves Trump aide Hope Hicks. Trump spokesperson Corallo pointed out that emails contradict the “adoptions” story, and he alleges Hicks said the emails will “never get out,” leading him to be concerned she would obstruct justice.
Mr. Corallo is planning to tell Mr. Mueller about a previously undisclosed conference call with Mr. Trump and Hope Hicks, the White House communications director, according to the three people. Mr. Corallo planned to tell investigators that Ms. Hicks said during the call that emails written by Donald Trump Jr. before the Trump Tower meeting — in which the younger Mr. Trump said he was eager to receive political dirt about Mrs. Clinton from the Russians — “will never get out.” That left Mr. Corallo with concerns that Ms. Hicks could be contemplating obstructing justice, the people said.
9/ She disputes the account, and she could also claim that she was only suggesting that they lie to the press and the public, which is not a crime. That said, destroying emails to prevent them from being subpoenaed is a crime. Improperly influencing testimony is also a crime.
10/ It’s unlikely this will lead to charges against Hicks unless there’s a lot more to this. But the article only scratches the surface of what could be revealed by Trump’s dictation of the Trump Tower statement and the discussion about the statement, which was not privileged.
11/ Trump Jr.’s lawyer, Trump, and others should not have crafted this statement together. It’s particularly odd given Trump Jr’s decision to release the emails that appear to contradict the statement shortly after.
12/ Prosecutors love when people who are under investigation reveal what they know and what they’re afraid of others knowing about. You can bet that Mueller will uncover a lot of details that aren’t in the @nytimes article. Trump and his son put themselves in a tough spot. /end