New York Times makes ‘obstruction of justice’ case against Trump while admitting there’s ‘no evidence’ in long report – Washington Examiner
An extensive New York Times story published Tuesday purports to take you “inside” President Trump’s “Two-Year War on the Investigations Encircling Him.” But save yourself the precious time and read Trump’s tweets instead.
The news out of the lengthy piece is an allegation that Trump late last year asked then-acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker if it was possible to appoint U.S. Attorney General for Southern New York Geoffrey Berman, a White House ally, to lead the district’s investigation into Trump’s former personal lawyer Michael Cohen, who pleaded guilty in November to charges of perjury, tax evasion, and campaign finance violations.
The Times reported that Whitaker “knew he could not put Mr. Berman in charge, since Mr. Berman had already recused himself from the investigation” and admitted that “there is no evidence that he took any direct steps to intervene in the Manhattan investigation.”
That’s the extent of news in the story, which otherwise recounts everything Trump has said on Twitter or in news interviews — that he was disappointed with former Attorney General Jeff Sessions recusing himself from the Russia probe, that he thought ridding himself of former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former FBI Director James Comey would quell the investigation, and that he believes there are conflicted elements at the highest levels of the DOJ working against his presidency.
The Times report asserts that Trump’s conduct has “exposed him to accusations of obstruction of justice,” but Trump has made all of his thoughts on all of his actions public over the course of more than a year, and the Times didn’t change anything by repeating it.
The article is an excellent source of information, however, if you want to know what mood Trump was in during any number of private conversations with his advisers.
[Also read: Why Trump doesn’t like Ann Coulter anymore]