Donald Trump has surreal meltdown about Russian collusion

| 11:26 pm EST December 28, 2017
Dear Palmer Report readers, we all understand the difficult era we're heading into. Major media outlets are caving to Trump already. Even the internet itself and publishing platforms may be at risk. But Palmer Report is nonetheless going to lead the fight. We're funding our 2025 operating expenses now, so we can keep publishing no matter what happens. I'm asking you to contribute if you can, because the stakes are just so high. You can donate here.

There’s denying an accusation. There’s thoroughly denying it. There’s protesting too much. Then there’s what Donald Trump just did when it comes to accusations that his campaign colluded and worse with the Russian government in the name of rigging the election. Trump sat down for an interview with the New York Times. The newspaper asked him about several topics. But all he wanted to talk about was Russian collusion.

Thus far the NY Times has only transcribed portions of the interview. But even the partial transcript has Donald Trump saying the word “collusion” a whopping twenty-three times. Remarkably, based on the partial transcript at least, the interviewer didn’t use the word “collusion” once. All it took was a mere mention of Jeff Sessions recusing himself in the Russia investigation, and Trump was off to the races. No matter the topic, Trump kept bringing it back to Russian collusion. Strung together, his collusion remarks added up to a rather surreal meltdown.

Trump started with this: “Frankly there is absolutely no collusion, that’s been proven by every Democrat is saying it.” For the record, there are no Democrats saying this. His thoughts on Robert Mueller? “I can only tell you that there is absolutely no collusion.” How long does he think the investigation will take? “There’s been no collusion.” But don’t worry, because Trump can’t wait to announce that there was some collusion with Russia, just not from his campaign.

That’s right, Donald Trump wants you to believe that the real collusion was between Russia and the Democrats. What’s his basis for this? Absolutely nothing, yet he still coughed up this hairball: “So, I actually think that it’s turning out — I actually think it’s turning to the Democrats because there was collusion on behalf of the Democrats. There was collusion with the Russians and the Democrats. A lot of collusion.” What’s he talking about? No one knows, particularly him. You can read the rest of the NY Times transcript here.