Making the Same Arguments, But Shuffling the Order
[Editor’s Note: The views expressed here are solely those of Ross Kaplan, and do not represent Edina Realty, Berkshire Hathaway (“Berkshire”), or any other entity referenced. Edina Realty is a subsidiary of Berkshire.]
Connoisseurs of legal strategies — specifically, the “it’s not my dog” defense — can be forgiven for having a sense of déjà vu watching the 
Trump team’s — shall we say — evolving response to charges of Russian collusion in the 2016 Presidential election.
For the uninitiated, here’s how the “it’s not my dog” defense works:
When the lawyer’s neighbor charges that the lawyer’s dog viciously attacked him, the lawyer gives the following, layered defense:
First, he denies that there even was an attack.
When neighbors step forward to say they witnessed the attack, the lawyer says the victim wasn’t really hurt.
When the victim presents the lawyer with graphic photos and a copy of the hospital bill, the lawyer argues that his dog attacked in self-defense.
Finally, when the neighbor produces affidavits from witnesses testifying that the attack was unprovoked, the lawyer protests that . . . it’s not his dog!
Cue Robert Mueller Investigation
The only difference with the Trump team is that they’re shuffling the order a bit.
So, when now-fired FBI Director James Comey first raised the specter of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, Trump’s response was that the accusation was patently false: “never happened, fake news” (i.e., there was no bite).
When this Summer, Donald Trump, Jr. was revealed to have met with Russian representatives, the spin shifted to, “nothing came of it” (“there may have been a bite, but if so, it didn’t break the skin.” Translation: there was no injury).
Then, this week, when a Trump campaign official, George Papadopoulos, pled guilty to lying about meeting with Russians, Trump’s tack was to discredit and marginalize the aide as a lying peon who acted independently (“it’s not my dog”).
If and when Mueller’s investigation ties collusion directly to Trump, what do you suppose he’ll say?
My two-fold guess: 1) “there’s absolutely no evidence that that swayed the election” (“there was no injury,” again); and 2) “Hillary did the same thing — if not worse” (call that tack, “I did it in political self-defense”).
Stay tuned . . .
See also, “Goldman Sachs: “It’s Not My Dog.’“
