Uhh, Comey! Uhhh, deep state! Uhhh, closed door inquiries!
Meanwhile, what was our wager again?
He quits or gets impeached and the Senate votes him out? You say neither?
What are the stakes?
The Inevitable New The Inevitable Trump Mocking Thread
- Thread starter Nonononono
- Start date
Meanwhile, what was our wager again?
He quits or gets impeached and the Senate votes him out? You say neither?
What are the stakes?
McCabe lies his ass off .....you post lies......the “ stake “ is being
driven into the Democratic Party as of today !
Criminal indictments.....yep !
Bitch....you and your ilk are scared shitless.
Sheriff Joe
DA
Yes I say neither and when I win you have to send your limo down to OC and pick me up for a nice dinner, none of that vegetarian, vegan tofu shit you eat either.
I charge $60/hr for my limo service.
Sheriff Joe
DA
So you lose and I have to pay?
Sheriff Joe
DA
This commie bastard Brennan has been proven to be a liar,
All The Russia Collusion Clues Are Beginning To Point Back To John Brennan
The evidence suggests John Brennan’s CIA and the intelligence community did much more than merely pass on details to the FBI. It suggests they fabricated events completely.
By Margot Cleveland
Last weekend, NBC News reported that the Justice Department’s probe into the origins of the Russia collusion investigation is now focusing on the CIA and the intelligence community. NBC News soft-peddled this significant development by giving former CIA Director John Brennan a platform (a pen?) to call the probe “bizarre,” and question “the legal basis for” the investigation. Politico soon joined the spin effort, branding the investigation Attorney General William Barr assigned to Connecticut U.S. Attorney John Durham “Trump’s vengeance.”
However, if the media reports are true, and Barr and Durham have turned their focus to Brennan and the intelligence community, it is not a matter of vengeance; it is a matter of connecting the dots in congressional testimony and reports, leaks, and media spin, and facts exposed during the three years of panting about supposed Russia collusion. And it all started with Brennan.
That’s not how the story went, of course. The company story ranthat the FBI launched its Crossfire Hurricane surveillance of the Trump campaign on July 31, 2016, after learning that a young Trump advisor, George Papadopoulos, had bragged to an Australian diplomat, Alexander Downer, that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton. This tip from Downer, when coupled with WikiLeaks’s release of the hacked Democratic National Committee emails and evidence of Russian efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election, supposedly triggered the FBI’s decision to target the Trump campaign.
The Real Story Is Different
But as the Special Counsel Robert Mueller report made clear, it wasn’t merely Papadopoulos’ bar-room boast at issue: It was “a series of contacts between Trump Campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government,” that the DOJ and FBI, and later the Special Counsel’s office investigated.
And who put the FBI on to those supposedly suspicious contacts? Former CIA Director John Brennan.
“I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about,” Brennan told the House Intelligence Committee back in 2017. Whether or not there was collusion with Russia, Brennan didn’t profess to know, but he passed on the information to the FBI to reach a conclusion.
“It’s not CIA’s job to make a determination about whether a U.S. person is cooperating, colluding, or whatever in some type of criminal or legal matter,” Brennan explained, stressing that instead, “it is our responsibility to give the Bureau everything that they need in order to follow that path and make such a determination and recommendation if they want to press charges.”
The evidence suggests, however, that Brennan’s CIA and the intelligence community did much more than merely pass on details about “contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign” to the FBI. The evidence suggests that the CIA and intelligence community—including potentially the intelligence communities of the UK, Italy, and Australia—created the contacts and interactions that they then reported to the FBI as suspicious.
Creating a Russia Collusion Narrative
Stefan Halper features prominently in the plot. All-but-officially outed by the government as a CIA source, the aging academic had contact with at least four members of the Trump campaign. Halper’s job of connecting targets with Russians, however, dates back to January 2014, when he worked at Cambridge University alongside Sir Richard Dearlove, the former director of the British intelligence service MI6, and Christopher Andrew, the official historian for the British counterintelligence group MI5.
In January 2014, according to a lawsuit filed against Halper for defamation by the Russian-born Svetlana Lokhova, Dearlove and Andrew invited her to attend a group dinner with U.S. Gen. Michael Flynn. At the time, Flynn served as Barack Obama’s director of national intelligence.
All The Russia Collusion Clues Are Beginning To Point Back To John Brennan
The evidence suggests John Brennan’s CIA and the intelligence community did much more than merely pass on details to the FBI. It suggests they fabricated events completely.
By Margot Cleveland
Last weekend, NBC News reported that the Justice Department’s probe into the origins of the Russia collusion investigation is now focusing on the CIA and the intelligence community. NBC News soft-peddled this significant development by giving former CIA Director John Brennan a platform (a pen?) to call the probe “bizarre,” and question “the legal basis for” the investigation. Politico soon joined the spin effort, branding the investigation Attorney General William Barr assigned to Connecticut U.S. Attorney John Durham “Trump’s vengeance.”
However, if the media reports are true, and Barr and Durham have turned their focus to Brennan and the intelligence community, it is not a matter of vengeance; it is a matter of connecting the dots in congressional testimony and reports, leaks, and media spin, and facts exposed during the three years of panting about supposed Russia collusion. And it all started with Brennan.
That’s not how the story went, of course. The company story ranthat the FBI launched its Crossfire Hurricane surveillance of the Trump campaign on July 31, 2016, after learning that a young Trump advisor, George Papadopoulos, had bragged to an Australian diplomat, Alexander Downer, that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton. This tip from Downer, when coupled with WikiLeaks’s release of the hacked Democratic National Committee emails and evidence of Russian efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election, supposedly triggered the FBI’s decision to target the Trump campaign.
The Real Story Is Different
But as the Special Counsel Robert Mueller report made clear, it wasn’t merely Papadopoulos’ bar-room boast at issue: It was “a series of contacts between Trump Campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government,” that the DOJ and FBI, and later the Special Counsel’s office investigated.
And who put the FBI on to those supposedly suspicious contacts? Former CIA Director John Brennan.
“I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about,” Brennan told the House Intelligence Committee back in 2017. Whether or not there was collusion with Russia, Brennan didn’t profess to know, but he passed on the information to the FBI to reach a conclusion.
“It’s not CIA’s job to make a determination about whether a U.S. person is cooperating, colluding, or whatever in some type of criminal or legal matter,” Brennan explained, stressing that instead, “it is our responsibility to give the Bureau everything that they need in order to follow that path and make such a determination and recommendation if they want to press charges.”
The evidence suggests, however, that Brennan’s CIA and the intelligence community did much more than merely pass on details about “contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign” to the FBI. The evidence suggests that the CIA and intelligence community—including potentially the intelligence communities of the UK, Italy, and Australia—created the contacts and interactions that they then reported to the FBI as suspicious.
Creating a Russia Collusion Narrative
Stefan Halper features prominently in the plot. All-but-officially outed by the government as a CIA source, the aging academic had contact with at least four members of the Trump campaign. Halper’s job of connecting targets with Russians, however, dates back to January 2014, when he worked at Cambridge University alongside Sir Richard Dearlove, the former director of the British intelligence service MI6, and Christopher Andrew, the official historian for the British counterintelligence group MI5.
In January 2014, according to a lawsuit filed against Halper for defamation by the Russian-born Svetlana Lokhova, Dearlove and Andrew invited her to attend a group dinner with U.S. Gen. Michael Flynn. At the time, Flynn served as Barack Obama’s director of national intelligence.
Sheriff Joe
DA
Graham: We’ve got 46 U.S. senators right now willing to condemn the House impeachment inquiry as unfair; Update: Now 50
ALLAHPUNDIT Posted at 1:31 pm on October 25, 2019
The number of co-sponsors of Graham’s impeachment resolution as of 6 p.m. ET last night was 44, meaning that nine Senate Republicans were still holding out. But two of those holdouts, Rob Portman and Dan Sullivan, made no sense. They’re each from red states. They’d have nothing to gain and everything to lose by crossing Trump on impeachment matters (especially Sullivan, who’s up for reelection next fall). Sure enough, Graham himself reported soon after on his Twitter feed that both senators had joined his cause. That left just seven holdouts — but all seven *could* potentially be hard for Graham to get. Or at least harder than the average Republican.
ADVERTISEMENT
Elizabeth Warren is going to have a hard time paying for Medicare for All
Alexander
Collins
Enzi
Gardner
Isakson
Murkowski
Romney
Two anti-Trumpers, two highly vulnerable purple-state senators who are on the ballot next fall, and three retiring senators. Hmmm!
It turns out that the new resolution wasn’t Graham’s first option for attacking the House inquiry. The White House wants him to be more aggressive against Schiff and company and so, per the Dispatch, Graham initially proposed to Senate Republicans that they should send a letter to Pelosi indicating that they were on Trump’s side — not just in his complaints about the procedures Democrats were using but on the merits of the Ukraine matter too. I think Graham, realizing how leery Pelosi is of impeachment, thought that a united front among Senate Republicans on the merits might give her the excuse she’s looking for to drop the inquiry. “Senate Republicans seem to have made up their minds before seeing the evidence,” she might have said. “That’s a dereliction of duty, but there’s nothing I can do about it so let’s move on from impeachment.”
The idea didn’t go over so well in the Republican caucus room, though, because there simply isn’t a united front on the merits of Trump’s defense.
Graham presented the idea of an aggressive letter to Speaker Pelosi, as first reported by The Hill, in which Republican senators would make clear that they would not vote to remove President Trump from office. The proposed letter would have included a defense of the president and a critique of the process run by House Democrats.
Numerous senators voiced concerns about Graham’s proposal. Tom Cotton argued that such a public missive would put vulnerable Republicans up for reelection in 2020 in a difficult spot: sign it, and you’re committing yourself to defend the president; refuse, and you’re making yourself a potential target of Trump’s ire. The former risks alienating conservative skeptics and independents and the latter would infuriate the Trump-friendly GOP base. Graham, whose office did not respond to a request for comment, was reportedly “blindsided” by the negative response from his Senate colleagues.
So, with McConnell’s help, Graham proceeded to Plan B: Forget the merits of the Ukraine matter and focus on process exclusively. Surely the caucus would agree to a resolution criticizing the way Democrats are running the inquiry. That would let all of them earn a little breathing room from the GOP base while they brace themselves for the momentous vote on removal after the president’s trial a month or two from now. And more importantly it would hopefully get TrumpWorld off of Graham’s back. They keep asking him to be a warrior for the president and meanwhile the president keeps making Graham’s job harder by griping about Senate Republicans:
ADVERTISEMENT
That Graham’s maneuver fell short of satisfying the political bloodlust among Trump’s allies didn’t go unnoticed by his colleagues, many of whom have privately griped in recent days about Trump’s eagerness to air his disapproval of the very people he needs in his corner in the event of an impeachment trial. One top GOP Senate operative said that patience on the Hill is “wearing thin.”
“It’s exhausting and they don’t know what they don’t know in terms of where this is going,” the operative added.
Other aides said that they found the attacks from Trump-allied operatives to be counterproductive.
“It’s an interesting strategy,” a senior Senate GOP aide told The Daily Beast, “to attack Republican senators after they try to defend you.”
I’m surprised that McConnell would get behind Graham’s resolution unless he had commitments in advance from 51 Republicans to support it. If Graham’s resolution fails, it’ll trigger a thunderstorm of media coverage about how Republican solidarity behind Trump might be weaker than everyone thought. Then we’ll have a real sh*tshow between Trump and the Senate GOP. I think Graham *will* end up getting at least five of the seven holdouts in the end, though. After all, unless you’re a stalwart anti-Trumper like Romney, there’s no incentive not to play nice with Trump at this stage of the process. If you’re open to removing him from office later, why turn adversarial so soon? Just vote with Graham, be a team player, and keep your powder dry until the removal vote. Frankly, I don’t think any of the seven except Romney or Murkowski are any real threat to cross the aisle on removal either. Collins and Gardner would be committing political suicide if they did so, and the retirees Alexander, Enzi, and Isakson are loyal Republicans who doubtless move in Republican social circles. Why cast a vote on removal that’ll alienate everyone around them back home when the removal effort won’t remotely approach 67 votes?
ADVERTISEMENT
The one wrinkle is that if Collins, Gardner, and the retirees have already quietly made up their minds to vote against removal later, then they might choose not to support Graham’s resolution now as a way of tossing Trump’s critics a bone in anticipation of the disappointment to come. They’d all be kidding themselves if they believe anti-Trumpers will care about anything else if they end up opposing removal, but siding with Democrats on Graham’s resolution is one very tiny thing they could all do to signal “bipartisanship.” If they end up refusing to support Graham’s resolution, that’s probably why. It’s not because they’re going to try to oust Trump later, it’s because they aren’t and are looking for conciliatory gestures to pro-removal constituents back home.
Anyway, the complaints about process are a fun sideshow but Republicans “are also keenly aware that there is an expiration date on that approach, given that Democrats soon plan to hold a series of public hearings to lay out their case, raising the possibility that their bind will only deepen as the more information pours out.” That’s why Trump and his inner circle are so peeved at Graham and so dissatisfied with this current stunt. A resolution denouncing Democratic secrecy won’t matter once the proceedings are no longer secret. A Judiciary Committee investigation of Burisma and CrowdStrike led by Graham potentially has much longer legs.
Sheriff Joe
DA
Sebastian Gorka Detects Something Strange about John Brennan’s Twitter Account
Posted at 6:00 pm on October 25, 2019 by Elizabeth Vaughn
CIA Director John Brennan testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, June 16, 2016, before the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on the Islamic State. Brennan said that the Islamic State remains “formidable” and “resilient,” is training and attempting to deploy operatives for further attacks on the West and will rely more on guerrilla-style tactics to compensate for its territorial losses in the Middle East. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Radio host Sebastian Gorka spotted something very unusual about former CIA Director John Brennan’s twitter account today. Gorka tweeted, “Why hasn’t @BarackObama’s chief bagman @JohnBrennan not appeared on Social Media for 9 days now?”
Brennan typically posts at least every day or two, usually to take a jab at Trump or one of his associates. But he’s gone quiet.
I know what might explain it. It’s been a week since NBC reported that Attorney General William Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham planned to expand their investigation and were said to be interested in interviewing Brennan and his colleague, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.
That had to be a blow and I’ll bet social media is just about the last thing on his mind.
I guess that’s what happens when you interfere in a U.S. election. Then, when you don’t get quite the result you were shooting for, you decide to do whatever it takes to overturn it. Not good for the soul John.
Oooh! I’m looking back at some of his previous tweets. Most of them are directed toward President Trump.
He does include several positive comments. Actually, he praises Mitt “Pierre Delecto” Romney for his courage and integrity! He writes, “How many other Republican Senators are ready to show the courage, integrity, & principled position of Senator Romney?”
Hopefully none.
He concludes with, “Thank you, Senator, for putting our Nation & our Constitution above party politics & the corrupt behavior of Donald Trump.”
In another tweet, he congratulates former National Security Advisor Susan Rice on her new book and commends her for her values. Did he catch what Susan said this week about Sen. Graham? Classy lady.
I bet Brennan was really rocked last night when he heard that Durham’s administrative review had shifted into a criminal investigation. At least he didn’t go on television to explain it all to us like his buddy, Andrew McCabe.
We may not be hearing much from Brennan in the near future. After all, finding just the right lawyer has got to be a very time consuming process. Poor Johnny.
Here are some of the responses to Gorka’s tweet:
He’s been on his alternate account, Juan Delicioso.
Check the airports!
He’s “remaining silent.” Probably on orders from his attorney.
He could be busy spilling the beans on all the rest.
It’s over Johnny!!!
He’s practicing trying to get his story straight…
He’s booking flights for Moscow…..
Nothing from either Brennen or BHO since 10/18.
The silence from Obama has been deafening as well.
My guess is he lawyered up.
I bet it was fun playing master of the universe for awhile, wasn’t it?
Sheriff Joe
DA
Watch: Adam Schiff’s Hypocrisy Laid Bare In Devastating Video Released by GOP
Posted at 5:00 pm on October 25, 2019 by Brandon Morse
Adam Schiff by Gage Skidmore, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0/Original
Apparently, the one person who can shame Adam Schiff more than Adam Schiff in 2019, is Adam Schiff in 2015.
During this “whistleblower” sham of a witchhunt, Schiff has done a number of ridiculous things, such as quoting Trump as saying things he never said to another world leader…
(READ: Adam Schiff Did One Of The Most Insane, Disgusting Things Ever Done In A Congressional Hearing)
…and gotten caught orchestrating this entire drama with the “whistleblower” before the complaint against Trump was even filed…
(READ: Adam Schiff Coordinated The Whistleblower Complaint Before It Was Filed With The Inspector General)
Not surprising anyone, this kind of behavior used to abhor Schiff according to statements he made in 2015 about the way Republicans were handling investigations.
The GOP managed to cobble together quite a few of these moments where Schiff lambasted the GOP as being a dishonorable and shady party for doing things such as allowing a set of rules for the impeachment to be set and established, and claiming that the GOP won’t even establish the scope of the investigation.
All of these things that Schiff was supposedly horrified by then are things that Schiff is unabashedly doing now.
Watch the video for yourself below and see.
Schiff acts as a moral beacon for the rest of Washington, even going so far as to pretend as if impeachment is something he didn’t want to do in the first place, but this video makes it pretty clear just how much weasel DNA Schiff has.
The hypocrisy of Schiff proves that this is a partisan witch hunt — partisanship horrified Schiff in 2015 — and the only thing keeping this going is the Democrat’s desperation and the media’s advanced case of Trump Derangement Syndrom.
Sheriff Joe
DA
Watch James Clapper Squirm On Live TV As He Finds Out He’s a Target of the Barr-Durham Criminal Investigation
Posted at 1:00 pm on October 26, 2019 by Bonchie
Director of National Intelligence nominee James Clapper testifies during the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence hearing on his nomination on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, July 20, 2010. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)
A little Saturday discomfort for you.
James Clapper, who is a paid shill over at CNN now, was brought on to his own network by Anderson Cooper to comment on an investigation he’s the target off. If you think that probably doesn’t match up with journalistic ethics, you are probably right. But this is the same network that brought on Andrew McCabe the same day to talk about this topic without even disclosing he’s suing the DOJ and is also a target. So ethics aren’t much of a thing over there.
Cooper starts to toss softballs at Clapper and he becomes visibly shaken, saying he doesn’t understand why he’s under investigation. For context, Clapper had only found out about the criminal investigation 20 minutes prior to this hit.
The eyes are darting, he’s stumbling over his words. “Uh, uh, uh” can be heard multiple times. This is a guy who’s not comfortable in his own skin right now. I can imagine I wouldn’t feel too chipper commenting on national TV about the DOJ investigating me as well.
Let me point a few things out.
One, the idea that this investigation is politically timed is nonsense. Clapper makes that assertion and Cooper offers zero push back because of course he doesn’t. The reality is that the Durham investigation started long before impeachment fever 2019. And the escalation to a criminal investigation follows the finishing of a years in the making IG report, not the impeachment inquiry. If anything, the timing of the whistle-blower and Schiff’s circus seem far more politically timed than the investigations that predate it.
Two, Clapper knows exactly why he’s under investigation. He has always been suspected of leaking the classified briefing given to Donald Trump on the Steele dossier to CNN. I wrote an entire piece several months ago about Jake Tapper’s denials not adding up on the matter. There are some serious questions and inconsistencies there. There’s also the fact that Clapper probably lied about his knowledge of the investigation. The idea that he didn’t even know it existed prior to Trump taking office doesn’t begin to pass the smell test. We have texts from Peter Stzok and Lisa Page saying that everything was being run from the White House. Clapper was the ODNI in that administration. He knew.
Hüsker Dü
DA
What, you forgot how to deal with grade school bullies?
Hüsker Dü
DA
As bizarre as this may sound, the American attorney general appears to have gone to allied nations, looking for damaging information about American officials, which he thought might help Donald Trump.
Italy, not surprisingly, had no such information, and seemed baffled as to what the United States' top law-enforcement official was looking for.
A block and this Vox piece from last month.
Italy, not surprisingly, had no such information, and seemed baffled as to what the United States' top law-enforcement official was looking for.
A block and this Vox piece from last month.
Sheriff Joe
DA
And?
Hüsker Dü
DA
Geography has never been Donald Trump's best subject. For example, the president attended a United Nations luncheon with African leaders a couple of years ago, at which he praised the health care system in Nambia. There is no such country.
A year later, the Republican told his foreign policy advisers that he knew Nepal and Bhutan were parts of India, despite the fact that neither is part of India. Trump has also reportedly struggled to understand different time zones.
But during remarks at a shale-energy conference in Pittsburgh yesterday, Trump's difficulties with geography came into sharper focus.
"[W]e're building a wall on the border of New Mexico, and we're building a wall in Colorado. We're building a beautiful wall, a big one that really works, that you can't get over, you can't get under. And we're building a wall in Texas. And we're not building a wall in Kansas, but they get the benefit of the walls that we just mentioned."
There were a handful of problems with this, including the fact that Trump really isn't making much progress when it comes to new border-barrier construction. The idea that people "can't get over" the fences may not be altogether true, either.
But the funny part, of course, was the president's assertion that he's "building a wall in Colorado," which is not a border state. (The fact that Trump's audience cheered this comment was probably my favorite part of the story.) Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) had a little fun at the Republican's expense, taking a Sharpie to a map of the United States to make Trump's falsehood true.
This likely would've been a half-day story that generated a few laughs, but he couldn't leave well enough alone. A little after midnight, Trump thought it'd be a good idea to explain why he got this wrong.
tweet, he made the comments "kiddingly," and in this part of his speech, he "refered [sic] to people in the very packed auditorium, from Colorado & Kansas, getting the benefit of the Border Wall!"
First, the video of Trump's comments is online, and he obviously wasn't kidding. Second, we're apparently supposed to believe there were a bunch of people from Colorado who traveled to western Pennsylvania for the president's remarks, and he wanted to let them know about the border barriers he's not building anywhere near their state.
In case this isn't obvious, Trump didn't need to say anything at all about his mistake. If pressed for an explanation, he or his team could've simply said he misspoke, referencing Colorado when he meant to say Arizona.
But to take this sensible course would involve the president acknowledging a harmless and inconsequential error -- which is something Trump simply isn't prepared to do.
If recent history is any guide, White House officials will quietly direct the Army Corps of Engineers to issue an unsigned statement today, explaining that Trump was right about wall construction in Colorado, reality be damned.
A year later, the Republican told his foreign policy advisers that he knew Nepal and Bhutan were parts of India, despite the fact that neither is part of India. Trump has also reportedly struggled to understand different time zones.
But during remarks at a shale-energy conference in Pittsburgh yesterday, Trump's difficulties with geography came into sharper focus.
"[W]e're building a wall on the border of New Mexico, and we're building a wall in Colorado. We're building a beautiful wall, a big one that really works, that you can't get over, you can't get under. And we're building a wall in Texas. And we're not building a wall in Kansas, but they get the benefit of the walls that we just mentioned."
There were a handful of problems with this, including the fact that Trump really isn't making much progress when it comes to new border-barrier construction. The idea that people "can't get over" the fences may not be altogether true, either.
But the funny part, of course, was the president's assertion that he's "building a wall in Colorado," which is not a border state. (The fact that Trump's audience cheered this comment was probably my favorite part of the story.) Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) had a little fun at the Republican's expense, taking a Sharpie to a map of the United States to make Trump's falsehood true.
This likely would've been a half-day story that generated a few laughs, but he couldn't leave well enough alone. A little after midnight, Trump thought it'd be a good idea to explain why he got this wrong.
tweet, he made the comments "kiddingly," and in this part of his speech, he "refered [sic] to people in the very packed auditorium, from Colorado & Kansas, getting the benefit of the Border Wall!"
First, the video of Trump's comments is online, and he obviously wasn't kidding. Second, we're apparently supposed to believe there were a bunch of people from Colorado who traveled to western Pennsylvania for the president's remarks, and he wanted to let them know about the border barriers he's not building anywhere near their state.
In case this isn't obvious, Trump didn't need to say anything at all about his mistake. If pressed for an explanation, he or his team could've simply said he misspoke, referencing Colorado when he meant to say Arizona.
But to take this sensible course would involve the president acknowledging a harmless and inconsequential error -- which is something Trump simply isn't prepared to do.
If recent history is any guide, White House officials will quietly direct the Army Corps of Engineers to issue an unsigned statement today, explaining that Trump was right about wall construction in Colorado, reality be damned.
Sheriff Joe
DA
How bad of a candidate did you put up?
Hüsker Dü
DA
Why do you support him?