Pecker Problems (Mueller+ Investigation Thread v. 21)

Status
Not open for further replies.
waiguoren said:
That's 30 hours over nine months, not thirty hours in a week.

Also, your post validates yet another prediction of mine.
Click to expand...

You are right, it being announced that McGahn is leaving, only 1 week after it was announced that McGahn spent 30 hours testifying to the Mueller probe, is totally arbitrary and is probably not related. It's a strange coincidence, like Manafort's banker having his 9th floor apartment broken into (in a neighborhood where no other break ins have been reported in the past 18 months) and having his briefcase and an ipad stolen probably has nothing to do with Manafort's witness tampering past.;)
 
waiguoren said:
<{cruzshake}>
Click to expand...

@Fawlty

The recent development was Trump's new lawyers realizing how extensive McGahn's cooperation was, and that they didn't have a grasp of what McGahn had said:

"Mr. Trump’s lawyers realized on Saturday that they had not been provided a full accounting after The New York Times published an article describing Mr. McGahn’s extensive cooperation with Mr. Mueller’s office. After Mr. McGahn was initially interviewed by the special counsel’s office in November, Mr. Trump’s lawyers never asked for a complete description of what Mr. McGahn had said, according to a person close to the president.
Mr. McGahn’s lawyer, William A. Burck, gave the president’s lawyers a short overview of the interview but few details, and he did not inform them of what Mr. McGahn said in subsequent interactions with the investigators, according to a person close to Mr. Trump. Mr. McGahn and Mr. Burck feared that Mr. Trump was setting up Mr. McGahn to take the blame for any possible wrongdoing, so they embraced the opening to cooperate fully with Mr. Mueller in an effort to demonstrate that Mr. McGahn had done nothing wrong."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/19/us/politics/don-mcgahn-trump-mueller.html
 
Cake4Breakfast said:
@Fawlty

The recent development was Trump's new lawyers realizing how extensive McGahn's cooperation was, and that they didn't have a grasp of what McGahn had said:

"Mr. Trump’s lawyers realized on Saturday that they had not been provided a full accounting after The New York Times published an article describing Mr. McGahn’s extensive cooperation with Mr. Mueller’s office. After Mr. McGahn was initially interviewed by the special counsel’s office in November, Mr. Trump’s lawyers never asked for a complete description of what Mr. McGahn had said, according to a person close to the president.
Mr. McGahn’s lawyer, William A. Burck, gave the president’s lawyers a short overview of the interview but few details, and he did not inform them of what Mr. McGahn said in subsequent interactions with the investigators, according to a person close to Mr. Trump. Mr. McGahn and Mr. Burck feared that Mr. Trump was setting up Mr. McGahn to take the blame for any possible wrongdoing, so they embraced the opening to cooperate fully with Mr. Mueller in an effort to demonstrate that Mr. McGahn had done nothing wrong."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/19/us/politics/don-mcgahn-trump-mueller.html
Click to expand...
Thanks, I had completely forgotten that he started talking to them in November.

We'll know soon either way I think. If the NYT reporting is accurate, Trump will make sure that his cult turns on McGahn too.
 
Fawlty said:
Thanks, I had completely forgotten that he started talking to them in November.

We'll know soon either way I think. If the NYT reporting is accurate, Trump will make sure that his cult turns on McGahn too.
Click to expand...
Already done. Loyalty Lane is strictly a one-way.
 
Fawlty said:
It feels like I'm never caught up on this shit lol. He's being thrown under the bus already?
Click to expand...
Is there any doubt this isn't a coincidental departure?

No source, I admit. Yet.

I'll take bets that the bus appears above Mcghan right quick
 
SBJJ said:
So? Absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact, he’s doing his job. Good on him
Click to expand...

You think he was doing his job, but the article stated that the heads of M15, MI6, and the GCHQ thought he was just there "trying to stir up controversy" and didn't grant Nunes the meetings he requested.
 
Cake4Breakfast said:
You think he was doing his job, but the article stated that the heads of M15, MI6, and the GCHQ thought he was just there "trying to stir up controversy" and didn't grant Nunes the meetings he requested.
Click to expand...
They foisted him off on some remedial assistant junior adjutant to the head building superintendent or whatever
 
waiguoren said:
I didn't say it "makes Trump look good". It makes CNN look bad, and it puts another bullet in the "Russia collusion" conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...

If CNN had to run a correction every time someone in trump's orbit changed their story, that's all they would ever do. They had a statement, they used it in an article. Later, the lawyer makes a statement claiming the previous one is "false." CNN doesn't need to rehash an old article to now mention that a previous statement is being contested, especially when it flies in the face of common sense. Of course Cohen is cooperating. You know that.

And how in gods name does this support Trump, or put a bullet in collusion? Cohen's already giving dirt on him, and including a statement from an attorney that came late to the story, that is already contradicted by the facts, would make no sense. Would CNN have to issue another retraction when this claim of "false" is shown to be bullshit as well?

But of course, in a week were trumps personal lawyer and campaign manager were both found guilty of crimes, your number one concern is CNN's not running a correction every time they change their story.
 
Darkballs said:
If CNN had to run a correction every time someone in trump's orbit changed their story, that's all they would ever do. They had a statement, they used it in an article.
Click to expand...

Should they have done the same thing if Sekulow had told Bernstein that Trump had proof he didn't know about the meeting, with no corroborating evidence?

Breaking: Sources Close to President Trump say Trump Can Prove he had no Knowledge of Trump Tower Meeting

That would be irresponsible, right?
 
waiguoren said:
Should they have done the same thing if Sekulow had told Bernstein that Trump had proof he didn't know about the meeting, with no corroborating evidence?

Breaking: Sources Close to President Trump say Trump Can Prove he had no Knowledge of Trump Tower Meeting

That would be irresponsible, right?
Click to expand...
Who cares?

This thread, and this investigation, aren't referendums on CNN's reporting.
 
Darkballs said:
Later, the lawyer makes a statement claiming the previous one is "false." CNN doesn't need to rehash an old article to now mention that a previous statement is being contested, especially when it flies in the face of common sense.
Click to expand...

CNN doesn't have to issue a retraction, but that is the standard response whenever a media outlet prints a thoroughly discredited story. That's why the Washington Post and the NY Post already did so:

wp11-1535454298.jpg


It's more important that CNN does so given the importance of the story. However, to issue a retraction would draw significantly more criticism.

It takes a certain level of maturity to admit fault. It's similar to how you still have not admitted that you were wrong to assert that CBP separated the crying migrant girl on the TIME cover from her mother.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,247,481
Messages
56,200,317
Members
175,105
Latest member
Havok7507

Share this page

Back
Top