Oh, Great, More Trump News

While the Trump legal defense wades through the swamp  that was supposed to have been drained, Trump's star lawyer Rudolph Giuliani - who was one a nice guy but is now a mean old man - said that he was afraid of Trump talking to Russia-investigation special counsel Robert Mueller because the truth could be set against an alternative version of the truth, and then added for good measure, "Truth isn't truth!"

To be fair, what Giuliani meant was that Trump could tell the truth and someone else could tell a contradictory lie that could be believed over the truth.  And I almost - almost - feel sorry for Rudy, as his client is the classic boy who cried "Wolf!" - a pathological liar who will not be believed even when he tells the truth.  I almost feel sorry for Giuliani . . . but I don't, because Trump never tells the truth.

As for the rescinding of former CIA director John Brennan's security clearance . . . I suspect that Brennan only fanned the flames of this brouhaha by insisting that it's "hogwash" that there was no collusion between the 2016 Trump campaign and the Russians.  There's no evidence of collusion yet.  (I'll expand on that in a moment.)  Trump is doing this, of course, to scare security experts who still have that clearance from speaking out against him, but when he started badmouthing a security expert no one had ever heard of or from, it became obvious that, if you're a former intelligence officer or national security adviser, you can still lose your clearance even if you shut up. 

It's telling, though,  that more security experts find Brennan to be a TV-camera-loving blusterer of a cable-news commentator, yet they all defended him.  As for the fact that Brennan has no security clearance anymore, that means he can't look at sensitive information and advise the White House based on that information . . . like Trump was ever going to consult him anyway.  

No, to the point that there's no evidence of collusion with the Russians yet . . . Brennan's comments were apparently based on circumstantial evidence.  As  the movie North By Northwest has demonstrated, circumstantial evidence can frame an innocent party, and the evidence has to be solid and incontrovertible  to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  I am not saying that Trump is innocent of the charge of Russian collusion and that there is no proof of colluding with the Russians.  I merely note that the evidence proving so isn't available yet.  Which is precisely why the Democrats should not run in the midterm elections on impeachment or even mention it.  If they do, then they give Trump ally Steve Bannon what he wants so he can push Republican turnout in the midterms to offset the expected Democratic surge and keep the GOP in control of the House.  So please, Democrats, keep talking about health care, wages, and infrastructure.  But not impeachment.  I've long since lost interest in the topic.

And I have never been interested in the Paul Manafort trial.  Oh, is that still going on?  Yawn . . .