Did the article name any particulars?
Particulars? no. just insinuations. For example, they say that what he said at the debate with Bush differed from what he said in court so either he lied in court, or he lied when he debated Bush.
From what *I* gathered by the article, he didn’t lie in either direction. He just simply didn’t push for gambling in Florida, but if he HAD (my personal impression) he would have been successful.
It seems he made an effort to ‘game’ the system by paying off Bush through contributions in order to change gambling in Florida, but the ground work couldn’t be done due to the issues with the man he’d sued. But that if he wanted to push it, he could have. And, he COULD have by hiring someone else to take his place, which the article didn’t touch upon. So, yes, if he wanted to change anything badly enough, he could have.
Therefore, Trump wasn’t lying!
I KNOW people in my meat world who are a lot like Trump. And when they say that they want something to go THEIR way, it’s because they most certainly do want that, and when that’s the case, that’s the way it happens. If it doesn’t, it’s purely because they weren’t pushing the issue. I have no reason to doubt what Trump said.
So, the insinuation was that he perjured himself in court, which he didn’t. It’s simply a type of mindset that Newsweek chooses to exploit for it’s own purposes.