The Washington Examiner’s Salena Zito unleashed a 30-tweet tweetstorm Friday night that 1) busted the New York Times piece on “nut job” James Comey and 2), was a pretty great takedown of the leakers in the administration who she says are the ones who “damaged national security,” not Trump.
First up, on the NYT:
1.) Spicer’s explanation that Trump was negotiating makes perfect sense, given the context.
— SalenaZito (@SalenaZito) May 19, 2017
2.) First, assume that Trump knows that there was no collusion, and therefore Lavrov knows there was not collusion.
— SalenaZito (@SalenaZito) May 19, 2017
3.) "Comey's a nutjob" b/c he wouldn't go public with this (consistent w/ Trump's statement Comey told him 3x he wasnt the subject of probe)
— SalenaZito (@SalenaZito) May 19, 2017
4.) The fact that Comey refused to openly dismiss the claim of collusion between Trump and ….
— SalenaZito (@SalenaZito) May 19, 2017
5.) …the Russians was leading to Congressional investigations and daily stories in the press alleging collusion.
— SalenaZito (@SalenaZito) May 19, 2017
6.) This was putting "pressure" on the administration to deal with the negative press, and made it very difficult to deal with Russia
— SalenaZito (@SalenaZito) May 19, 2017
7.) since any attempt to better relations would be seen in the context of the alleged collusion.
— SalenaZito (@SalenaZito) May 19, 2017
8.) Trump was simply letting Russians know of his constraints-In fact, the Russians caused this pressure by getting involved in the election
— SalenaZito (@SalenaZito) May 19, 2017
Recommended
And here comes the walloping of the leakers:
9.) The people absolutely guilty of crimes here are the leakers.
— SalenaZito (@SalenaZito) May 19, 2017
10.) Obama’s CIA director, John Brennan, no friend of Trump, pointed out last week that it was the press story https://t.co/ScgRQOVCwk
— SalenaZito (@SalenaZito) May 19, 2017
11.) on the Lavrov meeting that damaged national security, not what Trump said. https://t.co/ScgRQOVCwk via @YahooFinance
— SalenaZito (@SalenaZito) May 19, 2017
12.) How is Trump supposed to negotiate w/ foreign leaders if they KNOW that his staff will run to the press w/ ACTUAL NOTES of the meeting.
— SalenaZito (@SalenaZito) May 19, 2017
13.) If these pure as snow leakers are worried that Trump was breaking the law – go to the FBI, not your friends in the media.
— SalenaZito (@SalenaZito) May 19, 2017
14.) There is a massive amount of self-deception going on in the minds of the leakers.
— SalenaZito (@SalenaZito) May 19, 2017
15.) Treason is defined by the Constitution as “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.”
— SalenaZito (@SalenaZito) May 19, 2017
16.) And final point Whatever happened to Executive Privilege?
— SalenaZito (@SalenaZito) May 19, 2017
17.) All of this stuff being leaked to the New York Times and Washington Post may be inadmissible in Court.
— SalenaZito (@SalenaZito) May 19, 2017
18.) Since everyone is so keen on making the Nixon connection, lets look at the case of U.S. v. Nixon.
— SalenaZito (@SalenaZito) May 19, 2017
19.) In U.S. v. Nixon, the Court began its review of Nixon’s claim of Executive Privilege by recognizing that…
— SalenaZito (@SalenaZito) May 19, 2017
20.) . . . the importance of this confidentiality is too plain to require further discussion.
— SalenaZito (@SalenaZito) May 19, 2017
21.) Human experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with…
— SalenaZito (@SalenaZito) May 19, 2017
22.) … a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decisionmaking process.
— SalenaZito (@SalenaZito) May 19, 2017
23.) This didn’t shield Nixon from producing the tapes because:
— SalenaZito (@SalenaZito) May 19, 2017
24.)"Absent claim of need to protect military diplomatic or sensitive national security secrets we find it difficult to accept the argument"
— SalenaZito (@SalenaZito) May 19, 2017
25.) that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly diminished by production of…
— SalenaZito (@SalenaZito) May 19, 2017
26.) "such material for in camera inspection with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide."
— SalenaZito (@SalenaZito) May 19, 2017
27.) Notice that it is clearly implied that if there was the need to protect “sensitive national security secrets,”
— SalenaZito (@SalenaZito) May 19, 2017
28.) the court would not find it “difficult to accept” that the “very important interest in confidentiality is significantly diminished by
— SalenaZito (@SalenaZito) May 19, 2017
29.) production of such material,” even with “all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide.”
— SalenaZito (@SalenaZito) May 19, 2017
30.) <30>
— SalenaZito (@SalenaZito) May 19, 2017
***
Related:
‘Oh boy’: Another day, another NYT ‘bombshell’ on Trump and Comey; Update: WH doesn't dispute report https://t.co/xMQaAOd6uj
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) May 19, 2017