He could have used the election as a reason to close a deal: "Better make a deal with me now. The next guy is going to be far worse." But, he didn't. He used the election to explain why he couldn't be more pro-Russia right then at that point. "If you can wait a little, I can give you more."
You, of all people, giving the benefit of the doubt to someone who was promising, surreptitiously, to help Putie.
Why do you give the benefit of the doubt for Obama's confirmed pro-Putie behavior, but not for giving the benefit of the doubt for Trump's alleged pro-Putie behavior?
You seem to recognize that in my client negotiation example, you would never make that "truthful unilateral statement" because it would not help your client's interest, and indeed it would actually harm your client's interests because it would give the impression that you were going to cave in after you were paid. Merely stating a "truthful unilateral statement" is harmful when so stating it gives the impression that you plan on weakening your negotiating position.
Seriously, take off your anti-Trump hat for a moment, and see if you can make an objective judgement on this limited point.