The whole thing deserves to be read. There is a host of news – like this one, Trump would have asked acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker to install an ally to oversee the investigation of Michael Cohen in the Southern District of New York !! – and a glimpse of the world (and the White House) of Donald Trump.
But among all these words, a sentence of the text seemed to me of paramount importance for the reflection on Trump, the investigation and what special advocate Robert Mueller knows.
"This episode was one of the first multiple efforts of the president to implement a double strategy: publicly portray the history of Russia as a deception and attempt in private to limit the scope of the attack. ;investigation."
The "episode" to which reference is made specifically in the quote is Trump, in the middle of a departure management meeting of National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, retaining a rumor that President Paul Ryan reportedly said the president had fired Flynn. . No one at the meeting knew the true story and, as the Times article says, Trump did not shed any light on it or really seem to care about the truth. He quickly convinced himself that the dismissal of Flynn would raise any concerns about Russia's undue influence on its 2016 campaign. He therefore asked the White House press officer , Sean Spicer, to go and sell this line to the press.
The reason why the sentence above is so important is because it reveals the riddle to Trump's response to the various investigations of his campaign and the White House: why, s & # 39; he is totally innocent – as he has repeatedly stated – is he working so hard for so long to influence, obscure and seemingly hinder federal investigations?
Why did one of your lawyers contact Flynn and former campaign president Paul Manafort in the summer of 2017 to discuss possible pardons, as the Times reports?
Why invite government officials – including Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein – to hand over sensitive documents on the origins of the investigation into Mueller's interference by Russia to Trump's conservative allies in Congress, as the Trump newspaper reports?
And so on. Trump's actions are apparently not those of a person fully convinced of his innocence or indifferent to what these investigations might find.
Think about it in your own life. How many times have you fixed something – for two years! – that you do not care and do not worry about it? It's all the opposite thing of love, hatred, indifference. Indifference is a sure sign that you are truly without fear, without worry and without hope. Whatever happens, and all that. How Trump has acted over the past two years is the opposite of indifference.
The metaphor that has always made sense to me is Trump: a duck: on the surface of the water, he does everything in his power to give the impression of slipping smoothly, without any worry. Under the surface, he paddles wildly.
Now, just because Trump paddles like crazy under the surface while trying to look like he's sliding effortlessly to the surface does not make him guilty. To act guilty – or guilty – proves nothing.
But with this one sentence, Times reporters have crystallized the circle that I can not make my own thoughts on Trump and these investigations: Why work so hard to stop them if you're really not worried what will they find?