同情特朗普

  • 主题发起人 主题发起人 ccc
  • 开始时间 开始时间
upload_2017-9-1_20-30-12.png


WASHINGTON — President Trump was in an especially ornery mood after staff members gently suggested he refrain from injecting politics into day-to-day issues of governing after last month’s raucous rally in Arizona, and he responded by lashing out at the most senior aide in his presence.

It happened to be his new chief of staff, John F. Kelly.

Mr. Kelly, the former Marine general brought in five weeks ago as the successor to Reince Priebus, reacted calmly, but he later told other White House staff members that he had never been spoken to like that during 35 years of serving his country. In the future, he said, he would not abide such treatment, according to three people familiar with the exchange.

While Mr. Kelly has quickly brought some order to a disorganized and demoralized staff, he is fully aware of the president’s volcanic resentment about being managed, according to a dozen people close to Mr. Trump, and has tread gingerly through the minefield of Mr. Trump’s psyche. But the president has still bridled at what he perceives as being told what to do.

Like every other new sheriff in town Mr. Trump has hired to turn things around at the White House or in his presidential campaign, Mr. Kelly has gradually diminished in his appeal to his restless boss. What is different this time is that Mr. Trump, mired in self-destructive controversies and record-low approval ratings, needs Mr. Kelly more than Mr. Kelly needs him. Unlike many of the men and women eager to work for Mr. Trump over the years, the new chief of staff signed on reluctantly, more out of a sense of duty than a need for affirmation, personal enrichment or fame.

“It is inevitable that a guy who will not be contained and does not want to be handled or managed was going to rebel against the latest manager who wanted to control him,” said Roger Stone, the longtime Trump adviser, who believes Mr. Kelly represents a kind of management coup by “the triumvirate” of two powerful retired generals — Mr. Kelly and Jim Mattis, the defense secretary — and one general who is still in the Army, the national security adviser, Lt. Gen H. R. McMaster.

“Ultimately Donald Trump is his own man, and he’s going to resist all the control and regimented systems Kelly is trying to impose,” Mr. Stone said.

For the seven months of the Trump administration, the favorite parlor game in the West Wing has been guessing how long imperiled aides like Mr. Priebus would hang on before getting fired. But these days it is Mr. Kelly’s state of mind, not Mr. Trump’s, that concerns the beleaguered aides buoyed by the new chief’s imposition of structure and clear lines of authority.

The question now is how long Mr. Kelly will stay, with estimates ranging from a month to a year at the most. White House officials say that Mr. Kelly has given no indication he intends to leave anytime soon. He has thrown himself into long-term planning of the administration’s tax reform push, the president’s Asia trip in November and scheduling for the next several months, they said.

For Mr. Trump, few ingredients matter more in a staff relationship than chemistry, and at times he and Mr. Kelly — whose soldierly demeanor masks a slashing sense of humor — have enjoyed a mostly easy rapport. At commencement ceremonies at the Coast Guard Academy in May, Mr. Kelly elicited a big laugh from the president after Mr. Trump was presented with a ceremonial sword and Mr. Kelly told him that “you can use that on the press.”

Mr. Trump, who has said he has surrounded himself with former military men from “central casting,” respects Mr. Kelly, aides said.

On Friday morning, in the midst of a series of tweets heralding the recovery from Hurricane Harvey, listing the great things coming from his administration and taking another jab at James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, the president restated his public admiration for his chief of staff.

Long-serving advisers and friends remember when Mr. Trump also embraced the tighter controls imposed by Paul Manafort when he was brought on as the campaign chairman in the middle of 2016. Then they saw Mr. Trump quickly turn on him.

But in his short time at the White House, Mr. Kelly, a 67-year-old native of Boston, has had the most significant impact of any of the campaign or White House aides who have worked for Mr. Trump, according to interviews with a dozen current and former Trump aides and associates. He has regimented, as no one has ever done before, the flow of paper, people and information inundating an omnivorous and undisciplined Mr. Trump.

The president, for his part, has marveled at the installation of management controls that would have been considered routine in any other White House.

“I now have time to think,” a surprised Mr. Trump has told one of his senior aides repeatedly over the last few weeks.

Mr. Kelly cannot stop Mr. Trump from binge-watching Fox News, which aides describe as the president’s primary source of information gathering. But Mr. Trump does not have a web browser on his phone, and does not use a laptop, so he was dependent on aides like Stephen K. Bannon, his former chief strategist, to hand-deliver printouts of articles from conservative media outlets.

Now Mr. Kelly has thinned out his package of printouts so much that Mr. Trump plaintively asked a friend recently where The Daily Caller and Breitbart were.

Mr. Kelly has told his staff, time and time again, that his goal is to rationalize the chaos that has engulfed the management of the West Wing. Managing Mr. Trump is beyond his — or anyone else’s — powers, he has said repeatedly.

While Mr. Trump still reaches out to allies outside the administration — especially old friends and associates like Corey Lewandowski, a former campaign manager; Richard LeFrak, a fellow developer originally from Queens; Mr. Bannon and a handful of others — more often than not it has been through the White House switchboard and not on his personal phone. And Mr. Kelly has usually listened in on the calls, according to two people with direct knowledge.

Even Ivanka Trump, the president’s daughter, who has unfettered access to her father, has made a point of giving Mr. Kelly a heads-up if she is going to talk to the president about policy or politics, according to one of Ms. Trump’s friends.

Mr. Kelly has his critics outside the administration, notably Mr. Stone, who has accused Mr. Kelly of keeping the president from his friends and allies. He also has critics inside the White House, who have begun to complain that their access to Mr. Kelly has been limited. But Mr. Kelly’s biggest accomplishments are ones that people outside the West Wing cannot see.

When North Korea fired a missile over northern Japan last week, for example, he counseled Mr. Trump to deliver a stern rebuke he had written himself through a strong, measured — and spell-checked — statement delivered via official White House email, rather than a bombastic Twitter message.

Mr. Kelly is close to Mr. Mattis and supported the Pentagon’s decision to slow-walk Mr. Trump’s order to ban transgender troops from serving in the military, opting for the creation of a panel to study the matter before implementing a policy that is highly popular with the president’s conservative base.

Despite his crackdown on illegal immigrants and support for the Muslim travel ban in his previous job as Homeland Security secretary, Mr. Kelly has been among those calling for Mr. Trump to proceed with caution on rolling back Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, the Obama-era policy protecting from deportation immigrants who entered the country illegally as minors.

And he has moved swiftly to dispatch aides he deems unqualified by temperament, experience or credential with a minimum of drama and fuss. Mr. Kelly, people close to the president said, backed the removals of Mr. Bannon, Sebastian Gorka, a flame-throwing White House staff member known more for his cable TV tirades than strategic acumen, and Anthony Scaramucci, the short-lived communications director who self-immolated in an expletive-filled interview with The New Yorker in July.

The chief of staff keeps his own counsel and travels light. He brought over only a small handful of staff members from the Department of Homeland Security, and confides to an even smaller circle, which includes Leon E. Panetta, for whom he served as a top aide when Mr. Panetta was defense secretary in the Obama administration.

But how long Mr. Kelly and the president, two men with such divergent approaches to the common goal of Mr. Trump’s success, will be able to coexist is unclear.

Mr. Kelly has not been talking about it, apart from saying he is committed to stabilizing the staff in the White House.

But one associate who spoke to Mr. Kelly last month said the former commander had remarked that his current assignment was by far the hardest job he had ever had. His favorite gig, he jokes, was his first: Marine grunt.
 
No evidence to support Donald Trump's claim Trump Tower was wire-tapped, Justice Department finds
Sat 2 Sep 2017, 8:04pm


Photo: Barack Obama responded to the initial claim by describing it as "simply false". (AP: Pablo Martinez)


There has never been any evidence to support Mr Trump's assertion on Twitter that "Obama had my 'wires tapped' in Trump Tower just before the victory", despite continued insistence from some conservative websites and commentators.

But in a court filing late on Friday, the Justice Department added itself to the list of entities debunking the allegation.

The FBI and the Justice Department's National Security Division "confirm that they have no records related to wire-taps as described" by tweets from Mr Trump posted on March 4, the department said in a court filing in Washington.

The filing was in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by American Oversight, a government watchdog group.

Trump Tower, a mixed-used New York skyscraper, is home to one of Mr Trump's private residences and served as his campaign headquarters during the election.


Photo: Trump Tower served as campaign headquarters for Donald Trump. (Reuters: Mike Segar)


The surveillance claim, which first appeared in conservative media before being picked up by Mr Trump, prompted a rare rebuke by Mr Obama, who responded at the time through a spokesman to denounce the idea that he had ordered surveillance against then-candidate Mr Trump as "simply false".

In a statement, American Oversight said the Justice Department filing "confirmed in writing that President Trump lied when he tweeted that former President Obama 'wire-tapped' him at Trump Tower".

Asked for comment, a White House spokeswoman said on Saturday: "This is not news. We answered this weeks ago."

Despite the lack of evidence, the White House for several weeks attempted to bolster the baseless claim, and it helped fuel an also unsubstantiated inquiry by Devin Nunes, the Republican chairman of the US House of Representatives intelligence committee, into whether the Obama administration improperly "unmasked" surveillance intercepts of phone conversations Trump associates had with foreigners.

Reuters


特朗普:奥巴马窃听我好可怕!美司法部否认

2017-09-04 06:47:57 来源: 新华社

  美国司法部2日确认,去年美国总统竞选期间,时任总统贝拉克·奥巴马没有下令窃听候选人、现任总统唐纳德·特朗普。

  特朗普当选总统后,于今年3月4日在推特上称,竞选期间遭奥巴马窃听。这一说法最早出现在个别保守派媒体上。

  “太可怕了。刚刚发现,就在我获胜之前,奥巴马在特朗普大厦里窃听我。不过他一无所获。这是麦卡锡主义。”特朗普写道。

  “在神圣的选举期间,奥巴马总统竟然窃听我的电话,太差劲了。这是尼克松的水门事件。”

  水门事件是美国历史上重大政治丑闻。1972年总统竞选期间,共和党候选人、时任总统理查德·尼克松的竞选班子成员潜入民主党全国委员会办公室企图安装窃听器。这次事件被曝光导致尼克松于1974年辞职。麦卡锡主义即美国上世纪50年代的反共排外运动,许多人受到监视迫害。

  特朗普还要求国会调查奥巴马政府当时是否滥用调查权。

  时任白宫发言人肖恩·斯派塞还援引美国福克斯新闻电视台的报道称,具体实施“窃听”的是英国情报部门。

  不过,特朗普方面至今也没有出示任何遭窃听的证据。

  奥巴马方面立即坚决否认曾监听特朗普,美国国家安全局局长迈克尔·罗杰斯当月在国会听证会上也否认英国情报部门实施监听。

  美国司法部2日公开一份法庭档案,证实司法部确认奥巴马没有下令窃听特朗普。“联邦调查局和国家安全处都证实,他们没有3月4日推文中所称的那类监听记录,”档案写道。联邦调查局和国家安全处都隶属司法部。

  名为“美国监督”的民间组织依据信息公开法,要求司法部公开这份档案。

  对于这份档案的内容,白宫发言人简短回应道:“这不是新闻。我们数周前就已经作出回应。”
 
最后编辑:
707186


Washington (CNN) Former President Barack Obama on Tuesday bashed his successor's decision to rescind an immigration order shielding some children of undocumented immigrants from deportation, calling the move "cruel" and "self-defeating."

"To target these young people is wrong -- because they have done nothing wrong," Obama wrote in a post on Facebook hours after the decision was announced by President Donald Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions. "It is self-defeating -- because they want to start new businesses, staff our labs, serve in our military, and otherwise contribute to the country we love. And it is cruel."

The lengthy statement is among Obama's most forceful since departing office. Though he didn't mention Trump by name, he sharply criticized the President's motives and insisted rescinding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program was not legally required.

"It's a political decision, and a moral question," Obama wrote. "Whatever concerns or complaints Americans may have about immigration in general, we shouldn't threaten the future of this group of young people who are here through no fault of their own, who pose no threat, who are not taking away anything from the rest of us."

Obama said he hoped lawmakers pass a bill allowing those eligible for the DACA program to remain in the United States. And he framed the decision as a question of "basic decency."

"This is about whether we are a people who kick hopeful young strivers out of America, or whether we treat them the way we'd want our own kids to be treated," he wrote. "It's about who we are as a people -- and who we want to be."

Former President Bill Clinton joined Obama in calling Trump's decision "cruel."

"It's wrong because it's bad policy that solves no pressing problem and raises new ones. It's wrong because it's irresponsible, passing the buck instead of offering sensible solutions for immigration reform. Most of all, it's wrong because it's cruel to send these young people to places many of them have never lived and do not know. For them this is home. The United States is their home," Clinton said in a statement on Tuesday.

Clinton's statement also called on Congress to act immediately to "protect their status and pave the way for their future and America's future."

Former Vice President Joe Biden also criticized Trump's move.

"Brought by parents, these children had no choice in coming here. Now they'll be sent to countries they've never known. Cruel. Not America," Biden tweeted.

Promised to speak out
Just before leaving office in January, Obama told reporters during a news conference that he would speak out sparingly in his post-presidency. But he said revoking DACA was among the actions that would prompt him to weigh in.

"The notion that we would just arbitrarily or because of politics punish those kids, when they didn't do anything wrong themselves, I think would be something that would merit me speaking out," Obama said at the time.

DACA amounts to Obama's chief legacy item on immigration, though it's far reduced from the vision for major changes that he entered office promising.

During his first years in office, Obama focused heavily on repairing a damaged economy. Instead of immigration, he chose health care as his first major legislative push.

He approved the program in 2012 after unsuccessful efforts in Congress to pass a measure that would allow children of undocumented immigrants brought into the country illegally to avoid deportation.

During most of his first term, Obama insisted that taking action unilaterally to spare DACA recipients from deportation wasn't possible. Instead, he said it was up to Congress to craft a solution.

But after legislative efforts failed, Obama asked his attorney general and other administration lawyers to reassess his options for taking executive action. His administration argued that circumstances had changed after Congress was unable to pass legislation.

Months before his re-election, he announced in the Rose Garden that he was taking action on his own, though qualified his move as a short-term fix.

"This is not amnesty. This is not immunity. This is not a path to citizenship. It's not a permanent fix," Obama said. "This is a temporary stopgap measure."

His decision ignited controversy and legal challenges, though polls show a large majority of Americans support measures that would allow people who came to the country illegally as children to remain.
 
Barack Obama's statement
https://www.facebook.com/barackobama/

Immigration can be a controversial topic. We all want safe, secure borders and a dynamic economy, and people of goodwill can have legitimate disagreements about how to fix our immigration system so that everybody plays by the rules.

But that’s not what the action that the White House took today is about. This is about young people who grew up in America – kids who study in our schools, young adults who are starting careers, patriots who pledge allegiance to our flag. These Dreamers are Americans in their hearts, in their minds, in every single way but one: on paper. They were brought to this country by their parents, sometimes even as infants. They may not know a country besides ours. They may not even know a language besides English. They often have no idea they’re undocumented until they apply for a job, or college, or a driver’s license.

Over the years, politicians of both parties have worked together to write legislation that would have told these young people – our young people – that if your parents brought you here as a child, if you’ve been here a certain number of years, and if you’re willing to go to college or serve in our military, then you’ll get a chance to stay and earn your citizenship. And for years while I was President, I asked Congress to send me such a bill.

That bill never came. And because it made no sense to expel talented, driven, patriotic young people from the only country they know solely because of the actions of their parents, my administration acted to lift the shadow of deportation from these young people, so that they could continue to contribute to our communities and our country. We did so based on the well-established legal principle of prosecutorial discretion, deployed by Democratic and Republican presidents alike, because our immigration enforcement agencies have limited resources, and it makes sense to focus those resources on those who come illegally to this country to do us harm. Deportations of criminals went up. Some 800,000 young people stepped forward, met rigorous requirements, and went through background checks. And America grew stronger as a result.

But today, that shadow has been cast over some of our best and brightest young people once again. To target these young people is wrong – because they have done nothing wrong. It is self-defeating – because they want to start new businesses, staff our labs, serve in our military, and otherwise contribute to the country we love. And it is cruel. What if our kid’s science teacher, or our friendly neighbor turns out to be a Dreamer? Where are we supposed to send her? To a country she doesn’t know or remember, with a language she may not even speak?

Let’s be clear: the action taken today isn’t required legally. It’s a political decision, and a moral question. Whatever concerns or complaints Americans may have about immigration in general, we shouldn’t threaten the future of this group of young people who are here through no fault of their own, who pose no threat, who are not taking away anything from the rest of us. They are that pitcher on our kid’s softball team, that first responder who helps out his community after a disaster, that cadet in ROTC who wants nothing more than to wear the uniform of the country that gave him a chance. Kicking them out won’t lower the unemployment rate, or lighten anyone’s taxes, or raise anybody’s wages.

It is precisely because this action is contrary to our spirit, and to common sense, that business leaders, faith leaders, economists, and Americans of all political stripes called on the administration not to do what it did today. And now that the White House has shifted its responsibility for these young people to Congress, it’s up to Members of Congress to protect these young people and our future. I’m heartened by those who’ve suggested that they should. And I join my voice with the majority of Americans who hope they step up and do it with a sense of moral urgency that matches the urgency these young people feel.

Ultimately, this is about basic decency. This is about whether we are a people who kick hopeful young strivers out of America, or whether we treat them the way we’d want our own kids to be treated. It’s about who we are as a people – and who we want to be.

What makes us American is not a question of what we look like, or where our names come from, or the way we pray. What makes us American is our fidelity to a set of ideals – that all of us are created equal; that all of us deserve the chance to make of our lives what we will; that all of us share an obligation to stand up, speak out, and secure our most cherished values for the next generation. That’s how America has traveled this far. That’s how, if we keep at it, we will ultimately reach that more perfect union.
 
Barack Obama's statement
https://www.facebook.com/barackobama/

Immigration can be a controversial topic. We all want safe, secure borders and a dynamic economy, and people of goodwill can have legitimate disagreements about how to fix our immigration system so that everybody plays by the rules.

But that’s not what the action that the White House took today is about. This is about young people who grew up in America – kids who study in our schools, young adults who are starting careers, patriots who pledge allegiance to our flag. These Dreamers are Americans in their hearts, in their minds, in every single way but one: on paper. They were brought to this country by their parents, sometimes even as infants. They may not know a country besides ours. They may not even know a language besides English. They often have no idea they’re undocumented until they apply for a job, or college, or a driver’s license.

Over the years, politicians of both parties have worked together to write legislation that would have told these young people – our young people – that if your parents brought you here as a child, if you’ve been here a certain number of years, and if you’re willing to go to college or serve in our military, then you’ll get a chance to stay and earn your citizenship. And for years while I was President, I asked Congress to send me such a bill.

That bill never came. And because it made no sense to expel talented, driven, patriotic young people from the only country they know solely because of the actions of their parents, my administration acted to lift the shadow of deportation from these young people, so that they could continue to contribute to our communities and our country. We did so based on the well-established legal principle of prosecutorial discretion, deployed by Democratic and Republican presidents alike, because our immigration enforcement agencies have limited resources, and it makes sense to focus those resources on those who come illegally to this country to do us harm. Deportations of criminals went up. Some 800,000 young people stepped forward, met rigorous requirements, and went through background checks. And America grew stronger as a result.

But today, that shadow has been cast over some of our best and brightest young people once again. To target these young people is wrong – because they have done nothing wrong. It is self-defeating – because they want to start new businesses, staff our labs, serve in our military, and otherwise contribute to the country we love. And it is cruel. What if our kid’s science teacher, or our friendly neighbor turns out to be a Dreamer? Where are we supposed to send her? To a country she doesn’t know or remember, with a language she may not even speak?

Let’s be clear: the action taken today isn’t required legally. It’s a political decision, and a moral question. Whatever concerns or complaints Americans may have about immigration in general, we shouldn’t threaten the future of this group of young people who are here through no fault of their own, who pose no threat, who are not taking away anything from the rest of us. They are that pitcher on our kid’s softball team, that first responder who helps out his community after a disaster, that cadet in ROTC who wants nothing more than to wear the uniform of the country that gave him a chance. Kicking them out won’t lower the unemployment rate, or lighten anyone’s taxes, or raise anybody’s wages.

It is precisely because this action is contrary to our spirit, and to common sense, that business leaders, faith leaders, economists, and Americans of all political stripes called on the administration not to do what it did today. And now that the White House has shifted its responsibility for these young people to Congress, it’s up to Members of Congress to protect these young people and our future. I’m heartened by those who’ve suggested that they should. And I join my voice with the majority of Americans who hope they step up and do it with a sense of moral urgency that matches the urgency these young people feel.

Ultimately, this is about basic decency. This is about whether we are a people who kick hopeful young strivers out of America, or whether we treat them the way we’d want our own kids to be treated. It’s about who we are as a people – and who we want to be.

What makes us American is not a question of what we look like, or where our names come from, or the way we pray. What makes us American is our fidelity to a set of ideals – that all of us are created equal; that all of us deserve the chance to make of our lives what we will; that all of us share an obligation to stand up, speak out, and secure our most cherished values for the next generation. That’s how America has traveled this far. That’s how, if we keep at it, we will ultimately reach that more perfect union.


前总统干政?
 
前总统干政?

Freedom of speech?

在美国,台下的人谁想"干政"没那么容易。

在美国,总统干预司法可就是大事儿了。
 
upload_2017-9-7_15-40-44.png


WASHINGTON — Donald Trump Jr. told Senate investigators on Thursday that he set up a June 2016 meeting with a Russian lawyer because he was intrigued that she might have damaging information about Hillary Clinton, saying it was important to learn about Mrs. Clinton’s “fitness” to be president.

But nothing came of the Trump Tower meeting, he said, and he was adamant that he never colluded with the Russian government’s campaign to disrupt last year’s presidential election.

In a prepared statement during an interview with Senate Judiciary Committee investigators, the younger Mr. Trump said he was initially conflicted when he heard that the lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, might have damaging information about Mrs. Clinton. Despite his interest, he said, he always intended to consult with his own lawyers about the propriety of using any information that Ms. Veselnitskaya, who has ties to the Kremlin, gave him at the meeting.

A copy of Mr. Trump’s statement was obtained by The New York Times.

The acknowledgment by the president’s eldest son that he intended to seek legal counsel after the meeting suggests that he knew, or at least suspected, that accepting potentially damaging information about a rival campaign from a foreign country raised thorny legal issues.

“To the extent they had information concerning the fitness, character or qualifications of a presidential candidate, I believed that I should at least hear them out,” he said. “Depending on what, if any, information they had, I could then consult with counsel to make an informed decision as to whether to give it further consideration.”
Mr. Trump sat down with committee investigators in the Capitol shortly before 9:30 a.m. and was expected to remain under questioning for several hours. The interview was being conducted by staff, but a handful of Democratic senators attended.

Mr. Trump entered the Capitol under cover and did not speak with reporters.

The June 2016 meeting came about after the younger Mr. Trump received an email from a family associate saying that potentially damaging information was being provided as part of the Russian government’s support for his father. But in his statement on Thursday, he described his decision to agree to the meeting as the byproduct of the chaotic, seat-of-the pants campaign assembled by his father, rather than any attempt to collude with Russia.

Mr. Trump has given differing accounts of his contacts last year with Russians. He told the Times in March that he never met with Russians on behalf of the campaign, a statement his lawyer has since said was meant to refer to Russian government officials. In July, he described the Trump Tower meeting as primarily focused on the issue of Russian adoptions, before eventually acknowledging that he took the meeting because he was told Ms. Veselnitskaya had damaging information about Mrs. Clinton.

But intentionally misspeaking to Congress is a crime, giving his statement on Thursday added weight.

He told investigators that working for his father’s campaign consumed his life. “I had never worked on a campaign before and it was an exhausting, all-encompassing, life-changing experience. Every single day I fielded dozens, if not hundreds, of emails and phone calls.”

He is the second person connected to the Trump campaign to tell congressional investigators that the campaign was, essentially, too inexperienced and too unfamiliar with politics to pull off a master strategy — let alone coordinate with the Russian government. Mr. Trump’s brother-in-law, Jared Kushner, painted a similar picture during an interview with the Senate Intelligence Committee.

In his statement, Mr. Trump said he had some reservations about the June 2016 proposal from the meeting’s facilitator, Rob Goldstone, whom he described as a “colorful” music promoter he had come to know through the son of a Russian oligarch. Mr. Goldstone asked Mr. Trump to take a meeting that would include potentially damaging information about Mrs. Clinton.

“Since I had no additional information to validate what Rob was saying, I did not quite know what to make of his email. I had no way to gauge the reliability, credibility or accuracy of any of the things he was saying,” he said.

“As it later turned out, my skepticism was justified. The meeting provided no meaningful information and turned out not to be about what had been represented.”

In an email response to Mr. Goldstone, Mr. Trump wrote that if the promised information about Mrs. Clinton was as advertised, “I love it.”

“As much as some have made of my using the phrase ‘I love it,’ it was simply a colloquial way of saying that I appreciated Rob’s gesture,” he said in his statement on Thursday.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is one of three congressional panels investigating aspects of Mr. Trump’s ties to Russia and related matters. The committee, which has oversight of the Justice Department, is particularly interested in the circumstances surrounding Mr. Trump’s abrupt firing in May of James B. Comey as F.B.I. director.

Mr. Trump was still being interviewed by midafternoon, as Democratic and Republican staffers took turns questions Mr. Trump in one-hour blocks.

Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, said the mood behind closed doors was “cordial” and that investigators were asking primarily factual questions.

He said that what he had heard so far only made him more certain that the committee needed to hear from other attendees of the Trump Tower meeting, including Mr. Kushner and Paul J. Manafort, who was the Trump campaign chairman at the time. Senator Blumenthal said that the committee needs to look further into how Mr. Trump’s initial statements to the press about that meeting were put together.

“We covered a good deal of ground,” Mr. Blumenthal said. “There is still a lot of questioning to be covered.”
 
后退
顶部