I expect a lot of her answers to be "I can't discuss that matter in an open session", but I do expect her to poke a lot of holes in the official WH narrative of the Michael Flynn debacle.
Apparently, President Trump isn't thrilled about what she might say, because he tweeted this just a couple of hours ago:
This makes the president look a defendent in a trial yelling at his lawyer while he's questioning a witness. "Hey, ask her where she was on the night of the murder!"
Maybe I'm just spitballing here, but maybe the president should just keep his mouth shut about ongoing congressional and federal investigations into his possible wrongdoing? I mean, if he's innocent, why not just let everything just air out and prove he and his people did nothing wrong?
But he can't do that, right? Because this is all some giant conspiracy between the press, the deep state, and apparently everyone but his supporters to delegitimize him. So he's got to do an end-around the liberal media and pre-emptively smear Sally Yates by accusing her of being a leaker.
Because that's what innocent people do, right? They wouldn't say things like "I look forward to Sally Yates' testimony so we can clear the air and get to the real issues that face Americans." Instead, you'd insinuate she's a rat. I mean, that's what I'd do if I were innocent.
Besides, it's not like Trump has a history of slinging false allegations at people to smear them with absolutely no proof. It's not like he's the president now, with the highest levels of clearance to the most sensitive intelligence.
Anyway, nobody would be so stupid as to fall for this kind of nonsense, would they? I mean, Americans are smart enough to listen objectively to what Yates has to say and try to discern how reliable they think she is. Aren't they?
No comments:
Post a Comment