Keeping it classy, Donald Trump refused to make a concession speech after Ted Cruz’s crushing victory in Wisconsin.
I just love writing that so much, let me write it again. Ted Cruz’s crushing victory over Trump.
Instead, Trump issued this accusatory statement, somehow claiming that Ted “stole” the election (his Precious).
Trump accused Cruz of a serious election crime. His only evidence is that Cruz appeared at events arranged by Super PACs supporting his candidacy. This is a normal, and legal practice. It’s not coordination.
But what would be coordination is if Stephanie Cegielski’s–former head of the now-closed Trump Super PAC “Make America Great Again PAC”–allusion to hearing Trump campaign objectives at the Trump Tower is true.
Phillip Bump wrote March 29 in the Washington Post:
“Almost a year ago, recruited for my public relations and public policy expertise, I sat in Trump Tower being told that the goal was to get The Donald to poll in double digits and come in second in delegate count,” Cegielski writes at XOJane. Trump’s goal? “His candidacy was a protest candidacy.”
Nothing else in the column matters. All the rest of it, all of the talk about Cegielski’s conversion from Trump fan to Trump hater, her critiques of all of his foreign policy and his tweeting and all of that — there’s no reason to care unless Cegielski actually had some insight into what the campaign thought it was doing. Which she shouldn’t have. Except that she says she was in Trump Tower, hearing details of the campaign’s strategy.
If Cegielski was recruited to run a Super PAC and sat in on a Trump campaign meeting, that would be smoking gun proof that Trump violated the exact law he so casually accused Cruz of breaking.
As Trump’s buddy David Pecker’s National Enquirer would say “enquiring minds want to know.”
We reached out to Cegielski to try and determine the point at which she spoke with the PAC and, she seems to claim, the campaign. (No word back yet.) That’s the only question that matters. If she didn’t have any inside information — as Trump’s team claims — her story is a story that could have come from any number of people loosely attached to any number of candidates.
And if she did have inside information, the more interesting story is how the PAC and the campaign interacted — not that she, like so many other Republicans, would rather not see Trump win the nomination. Which is why the post went viral, of course. The idea that an “insider” turned against the candidate is catnip for people who hate the candidate.