- The Washington Times - Thursday, January 25, 2018

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

President Donald Trump sent a bit of a shockwave through the media on his way to Davos, Switzerland, when he told reporters gathered at the White House that yes, he was willing to speak with special counsel Robert Mueller, under oath, no less.

This is a 50-50 scenario for the president, at best. In the hands of the media, the spin from this interview would be anti-Trump news fodder for weeks.

But Trump seemed quite excited about the prospect, nevertheless.

“I’m looking forward to it,” he said. “I would love to do it. … I would do it under oath.”

White House attorney Ty Cobb rushed to clarify that the time frame and specifics of this interview — ostensibly, even whether or not it would actually take place — were still being worked out, but that Trump’s message was essentially that he had nothing to hide.



Trump went on to tell reporters at this impromptu presser that “I couldn’t have cared less about Russians having to do with my campaign” because “fact is — you people won’t say this, but I’ll say it — I was a much better candidate than” Hillary Clinton.

True on that.

But the idea of Trump talking to Mueller is a grey area. It’s entering caution zone.

It’s not that it’s likely any such conversation will lead to a smoking gun — that Mueller will learn details that would bring this administration, or this administration’s political allies, to their knees. This Russia collusion thing is pretty much a witch hunt, and a partisan one at that. As the weeks go by, the political currents floating the whole investigation seem to become more and more obvious. But rather it’s that the perception of Trump going through a Q&A with Mueller under oath will be shrill makings for an angry, biased media.

Can you imagine the headlines of Trump being quizzed by Mueller in the hands of a Rachel Maddow, a Don Lemon, a New York Times editorial team? The questioning alone would be the sign of guilt to the left.

The substance and findings of the questioning — which would undoubtedly prove a “no collusion” argument?

That wouldn’t so much matter to the mainstream media, to the left, to the many anti-Trumpers of the country who want nothing less than impeachment of this president. The facts, after all, never do.

Cheryl Chumley can be reached at [email protected] or on Twitter, @ckchumley.

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide