Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Right Side of the News
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 1921 of 5796 (852706)
05-16-2019 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 1920 by Faith
05-16-2019 3:17 AM


Re: Calumniating Barr: the latest tactic
quote:
There is no evidence supporting obstruction. It's all things that didn't happen, it's stuff Trump said but didn't do
You mean Trump ordering obstruction, but his subordinates refusing to carry out those orders ? Surely you see that isn’t a good thing.
quote:
And the things he did do didn't obstruct anything.
In fact we know that Trump’s refusal to testify hampered the collusion investigation, to at least some degree.
quote:
You say I have to prove Mueller did intend to indict but I don't believe he intended to indict,
Then why do you keep saying otherwise ?
quote:
....I don't think he found anything criminal so there was nothing to indict Trump for
That isn’t the question at all. The question is whether Mueller intended to indict Trump if he could find the evidence to do so. You say he did, Mueller says he didn’t. I see no reason to disbelieve Mueller on this point.
quote:
The bulk of the second part of his report is all the usual innuendo intended to feed the ravenous Trump maligners, not even anything that should have been in such a report.
In other words evidence that justifies charges of obstruction.
quote:
I hope Barr's investigation of the investigation finally gets at the truth in all this phony stuff aimed at bringing down Trump.
In other words you want a cover-up and persecution of any potential whistle-blowers. Another move in the destruction of liberty. Just as I expected from you. And why not when you try to smear anyone pointing out that Barr is a dishonest Trump partisan ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1920 by Faith, posted 05-16-2019 3:17 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1923 by Faith, posted 05-16-2019 3:52 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 1929 by Percy, posted 05-16-2019 8:33 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1922 of 5796 (852707)
05-16-2019 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1874 by PaulK
05-14-2019 3:00 PM


Re: Reformed theology
Sorry, there was a thousand-year hiatus along the main path of the Church from the seventh century on, in which the Roman pagan superstition had the political power to impose its false version of Christianity on the public. The traditional church did exist in the earliest years, and also continued in pockets of believers outside the RCC, but it took the Reformation to fully recover its doctrines. There have also been deviations since then but in recent years we've been having a revival of reformed teaching. Sproul and the other modern followers of the Reformation continue to support and define what the Reformation said.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1874 by PaulK, posted 05-14-2019 3:00 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1924 by PaulK, posted 05-16-2019 4:02 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1923 of 5796 (852708)
05-16-2019 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1921 by PaulK
05-16-2019 3:42 AM


Re: Calumniating Barr: the latest tactic
Where did I say he intended to indict? I had no intention of saying any such thing.
"cover up" indeed. The cover up was the whole Mueller report itself, designed to overturn the election of Trump and to put suspicion on Trump to deflect it from Hillary who richly deserves to be prosecuted for collaborating with Russia and for obstruction of justice in actually destroying evidence of her misuse of classified information.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1921 by PaulK, posted 05-16-2019 3:42 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1925 by PaulK, posted 05-16-2019 4:09 AM Faith has replied
 Message 1928 by Chiroptera, posted 05-16-2019 8:32 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1924 of 5796 (852709)
05-16-2019 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1922 by Faith
05-16-2019 3:47 AM


Re: Reformed theology
quote:
Sorry, there was a thousand-year hiatus along the main path of the Church from the seventh century on, in which the Roman pagan superstition had the political power to impose its false version of Christianity on the public.
Aside from the bias you are completely ignoring the areas beyond Rome’s control.
quote:
The traditional church did exist in the earliest years, and also continued in pockets of believers outside the RCC, but it took the Reformation to fully recover its doctrines.
Oh no, the Reformation may have been presented that way and did roll back some things but it wasn’t really a return to a previous state at all.
quote:
There have also been deviations since then but in recent years we've been having a revival of reformed teaching. Sproul and the other modern followers of the Reformation continue to support and define what the Reformation said.
We’re back to your weird view that modern writers define the “original” view while the people who lived at the time are just “revisionists” are we ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1922 by Faith, posted 05-16-2019 3:47 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1925 of 5796 (852710)
05-16-2019 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 1923 by Faith
05-16-2019 3:52 AM


Re: Calumniating Barr: the latest tactic
quote:
Where did I say he intended to indict? I had no intention of saying any such thing.
Message 1882
If there were "all the elements for an obstruction charge," Mueller would have brought that charge, that was the whole point of his investigation, to bring charges where he found it justified
Message 1883
Mueller's report DID exonerate Trump, of both "collusion" and obstruction of justice. Because that was the only point of such a report, to bring charges where cause was found.
Message 1887
Again, if Mueller had found such a cause HE WOULD HAVE BROUGHT CHARGES
quote:
"cover up" indeed. The cover up was the whole Mueller report itself, designed to overturn the election of Trump and to put suspicion on Trump to deflect it from Hillary who richly deserves to be prosecuted for collaborating with Russia and for obstruction of justice in actually destroying evidence of her misuse of classified information.
Given the Russian meddling in the election in Trump’s favour it would be pretty weird to investigate his opponent for collusion.
And the absence of evidence for charges is not proof of obstruction even when applied to people you want jailed.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1923 by Faith, posted 05-16-2019 3:52 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1926 by Faith, posted 05-16-2019 4:18 AM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1926 of 5796 (852711)
05-16-2019 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1925 by PaulK
05-16-2019 4:09 AM


Re: Calumniating Barr: the latest tactic
You seem to be using my quotes to mean the exact opposite of what they say. I'm saying he did NOT bring charges because there were none to bring. The point of the investigation would have been to do that where he found reason to but he did not find reason to. Therefore he had no intention of indicting Trump.
He had nothing to do with the Russians' efforts, which didn't succeed anyway. But Hillary DID collude with Russians against Trump in buying that bogus "dossier" and using it to try to defame him in an effort to destroy his run for President.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1925 by PaulK, posted 05-16-2019 4:09 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1927 by PaulK, posted 05-16-2019 4:46 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(3)
Message 1927 of 5796 (852712)
05-16-2019 4:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1926 by Faith
05-16-2019 4:18 AM


Re: Calumniating Barr: the latest tactic
quote:
You seem to be using my quotes to mean the exact opposite of what they say. I'm saying he did NOT bring charges because there were none to bring
No, that is exactly how I am using them. The whole point of this is that you have not defended the quoted assertions even though Mueller has explicitly denied any intent to indict Trump, no matter what the evidence showed.
quote:
The point of the investigation would have been to do that...
Mueller says otherwise. Aside from your usual smears is there any reason to disbelieve him ? That is the whole point we’re arguing about here.
quote:
He had nothing to do with the Russians' efforts, which didn't succeed anyway
You are actually claiming that Trump LOST the election ?
quote:
But Hillary DID collude with Russians against Trump in buying that bogus "dossier" and using it to try to defame him in an effort to destroy his run for President.
Buying a dossier from a US company is “colluding with the Russians” ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1926 by Faith, posted 05-16-2019 4:18 AM Faith has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 1928 of 5796 (852714)
05-16-2019 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1923 by Faith
05-16-2019 3:52 AM


Re: Calumniating Barr: the latest tactic
The cover up was the whole Mueller report itself, designed to overturn the election of Trump and to put suspicion on Trump to deflect it from Hillary....
Wait, what? I thought the Mueller report completely exonerates Trump. Did Rosenberg lie?

If this was a witch hunt, it found a lot of witches. -- David Cole, writing about the Mueller investigation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1923 by Faith, posted 05-16-2019 3:52 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1929 of 5796 (852715)
05-16-2019 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1921 by PaulK
05-16-2019 3:42 AM


Re: Calumniating Barr: the latest tactic
Just wanted to comment on some things and give my own understanding on others:
PaulK writes:
quote:
There is no evidence supporting obstruction. It's all things that didn't happen, it's stuff Trump said but didn't do
You mean Trump ordering obstruction, but his subordinates refusing to carry out those orders ? Surely you see that isn’t a good thing.
An obstructive order to a subordinate is obstruction, whether or not the subordinate obeys. An attempt at an obstructive act is obstruction, whether or not it succeeds.
quote:
And the things he did do didn't obstruct anything.
In fact we know that Trump’s refusal to testify hampered the collusion investigation, to at least some degree.
This is a key point that (appropriately) didn't receive any mention in the Mueller report and (inexplicably) received little mention in the press, that the collusion evidence might have been much stronger had there been no obstruction.
quote:
....I don't think he found anything criminal so there was nothing to indict Trump for
That isn’t the question at all. The question is whether Mueller intended to indict Trump if he could find the evidence to do so. You say he did, Mueller says he didn’t. I see no reason to disbelieve Mueller on this point.
You're right about Mueller expressing no intention of indicting a sitting president, and DWise1 quoted the entire relevant section in his Message 1912. It's written in plain and easily comprehensible English, not legalese.
quote:
The bulk of the second part of his report is all the usual innuendo intended to feed the ravenous Trump maligners, not even anything that should have been in such a report.
In other words evidence that justifies charges of obstruction.
I think those charging that the report contained innuendo instead of evidence provided by testimony and documentation should provide examples.
quote:
I hope Barr's investigation of the investigation finally gets at the truth in all this phony stuff aimed at bringing down Trump.
In other words you want a cover-up and persecution of any potential whistle-blowers. Another move in the destruction of liberty. Just as I expected from you. And why not when you try to smear anyone pointing out that Barr is a dishonest Trump partisan ?
I do agree that any investigation should be to get at the truth, but there is mounting evidence that for Barr that priority is subordinate to his expansive view of presidential power.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1921 by PaulK, posted 05-16-2019 3:42 AM PaulK has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 1930 of 5796 (852717)
05-16-2019 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1920 by Faith
05-16-2019 3:17 AM


Re: Calumniating Barr: the latest tactic
The things he said were obstruction of justice. Telling McGahn to lie was obstruction of justice even though McGahn didn't do it. Telling Lewandowski to fire Mueller was obstruction of justice even though Lewandowski didn't do it (and couldn't but Trump’s too stupid to realize it).
Attempting to obstruct justice is a crime, whether or not you succeed.
Attempting to obstruct justice is a crime even if it turns out the investigation you want to obstruct doesn't find any crimes.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1920 by Faith, posted 05-16-2019 3:17 AM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 1931 of 5796 (852723)
05-16-2019 11:39 AM


Some real evidence for Faith to deny
I spent some time on hold today, and extracted some of the report's evidence on Ordering McGahn to Deny that the President Tried to Fire the Special Counsel.
I. The President Orders McGahn to Deny that the President Tried to Fire the Special Counsel
{Skip summary -- JonF}
2. The President Seeks to Have McGahn Dispute the Press Reports
On January 26, 2018, the President's personal counsel called McGahn 's attorney and said that the President wanted McGahn to put out a statement denying that he had been asked to tire the Special Counsel and that he had threatened to quit in protest. 784 McGahn's attorney spoke with McGahn about that request and then called the President's personal counsel to relay that McGahn would not make a statement. 785 McGahn 's attorney informed the President's personal counsel that the Times story was accurate in reporting that the President wanted the Special Counsel removed. 786 Accordingly, McGahn's attorney said, although the article was inaccurate in some other respects, McGahn could not comply with the President 's request to dispute the story. 787 Hicks recalled relaying to the President that one of his attorneys had spoken to McGahn 's attorney about the issue.788
Also on January 26, 2017, Hicks recalled that the President asked Sanders to contact McGahn about the story .789 McGahn told Sanders there was no need to respond and indicated that some of the article was accurate. 79 Consistent with that position , McGahn did not correct the Times story.
On February 4, 20 l 8, Priebus appeared on Meet the Press and said he had not heard the President say that he wanted the Special Counsel fired. 791 After Priebus's appearance, the President called Priebus and said he did a great job on Meet the Press. 792 The President also told Priebus that the President had "never said any of those things about" the Special Counsel. 793
The next day, on February 5, 2018, the President complained about the Times article to Porter. 794 The President told Porter that the article was "bullshit" and he had not sought to terminate the Special Counsel. 795 The President said that McGahn leaked to the media to make himself look good. 796 The President then directed Porter to tell McGahn to create a record to make clear that the President never directed McGahn to fire the Special Counsel. 797 Porter thought the matter should be handled by the White House communications office, but the President said he wanted McGahn to write a letter to the file "for our records" and wanted something beyond a press statement to demonstrate that the reporting was inaccurate. 798 The President referred to McGahn as a "lying bastard" and said that he wanted a record from him .799 Porter recalled the President saying something to the effect of, "If he doesn't write a letter , then maybe I'll have to get rid of him."800
Later that day, Porter spoke to McGahn to deliver the President's message .801 Porter told McGahn that he had to write a letter to dispute that he was ever ordered to terminate the Special Counsel. 802 McGahn shrugged off the request, explaining that the media reports were true. 803 McGahn told Porter that the President had been insistent on firing the Special Counsel and that McGahn had planned to resign rather than carry out the order, although he had not personally told the President he intended to quit. 804 Porter told McGahn that the President suggested that McGahn would be fired if he did not write the letter. 805 McGahn dismissed the threat, saying that the optics would be terrible if the President followed through with firing him on that basis. 806 McGahn said he would not write the letter the President had requested. 807 Porter said that to his knowledge the issue oMcGahn's letter never came up with the President again , but Porter did recall telling Kelly about his conversation with McGahn .808
The next day, on February 6, 2018, Kelly scheduled time for McGahn to meet with him and the President in the Oval Office to discuss the Times article. 809 The morning of the meeting , the President's personal counsel called McGahn's attorney and said that the President was going to be speaking with McGahn and McGahn could not resign no matter what happened in the meeting. 810
The President began the Oval Office meeting by telling McGahn that the New York Times story did not "look good" and McGahn needed to correct it.811 McGahn recalled the President said , "I never said to fire Mueller. I never said 'fire. ' This story doesn't look good. You need to correct this. You're the White House counsel." 812
In response, McGahn acknowledged that he had not told the President directly that he planned to resign , but said that the story was otherwise accurate. 813 The President asked McGahn , · "Did I say the word ' fire'?" 814 McGahn responded, "What you said is, ' Call Rod [Rosenstein] , tell Rod that Mueller has conflicts and can't be the Special Counsel. "' 8 15 The President responded, "I never said that. "816 The President said he merely wanted McGahn to raise the conflicts issue with Rosenstein and leave it to him to decide what to do. 817 McGahn told the President he did not understand the conversation that way and instead had heard , "Call Rod. There are conflict s. Mueller has to go." 818 The President asked McGahn whether he would "do a correction, " and McGahn said no.819 McGahn thought the President was testing his mettle to see how committed McGahn was to what happened. 82 Kelly described the meeting as "a little tense. "821
The President also asked McGahn in the meeting why he had told Special Counsel's Office investigators that the President had told him to have the Special Counsel removed. 822 McGahn responded that he had to and that his conversations with the President were not protected by attorney-client privilege. 823 The President then asked , "What-about these notes? Why do you take notes? Lawyers don 't take note s. I never had a lawyer who took notes ." 824 McGahn responded that he keeps notes because he is a "real lawyer " and explained that notes create a record and are not a bad thing. 825 The President said , " I' ve had a lot of great lawyers , like Roy Cohn . He did not take notes. "826
After the Oval Office meeting concluded , Kelly recalled McGahn telling him that McGahn and the President "did have that conversation " about removing the Special Counsel. 827 McGahn recalled that Kelly said that he had point ed out to the President after the Oval Office that McGahn had not backed down and would not budge. 828 Following the Oval Office meeting, the President's personal counsel called McGahn' s counsel and relayed that the President was '"fine" with McGahn. 829
Analysis
In analyzing the President 's efforts to have McGahn deny that he had been ordered to have the Special Counsel removed, the following evidence is relevant to the elements of obstruction of justice:
a. Obstructive act. The President's repeated efforts to get McGahn to create a record denying that the President had directed him to remove the Special Counsel would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness if he testified consistently with his memory, rather than with what the record said.
There is some evidence that at the time the New York Times and Washington Post stories were published in late January 2018, the President believed the stories were wrong and that he had never told McGahn to have Rosenstein remove the Special Counsel. The President correctly understood that McGahn had not told the President directly that he planned to resign. Tn addition , the President told Priebus and Porter that he had not sought to terminate the Special Counsel , and in the Oval Office meeting with McGahn , the President said, "I never said to fire Mueller. I never said 'fire."' That evidence could indicate that the President was not attempting to persuade McGahn to change his story but was instead offering his own-but different-recollection of the substance of his June 2017 conversations with McGahn and McGahn 's reaction to them.
Other evidence cuts against that understanding of the President 's conduct. As previously described, see Volume IT, Section ILE, supra, substantial evidence supports McGahn's account that the President had directed him to have the Special Counsel removed, including the timing and context of the President's directive ; the manner in which McGahn reacted; and the fact that the President had been told the conflicts were insubstantial, were being considered by the Department of Justice , and should be raised with the President's personal counsel rather than brought to McGahn. In addition, the President's subsequent denials that he had told McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed were carefully worded. When first asked about the New York Times story, the President said, "Fake news, folks. Fake news. A typical New York Times fake story." And when the President spoke with McGahn in the Oval Office, he focused on whether he had used the word "fire, " saying, "I never said to fire Mueller. I never said ' fire"' and "Did T say the word ' fire'?" The President's assertion in the Oval Office meeting that he had never directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed thus runs counter to the evidence .
Tn addition, even if the President sincerely disagreed with McGahn's memory of the June 17, 2017 events, the evidence indicates that the President knew by the time of the Oval Office meeting that McGahn's account differed and that McGahn was firm in his views . Shortly after the story broke, the President's counsel told McGahn 's counsel that the President wanted McGahn to make a statement denying he had been asked to fire the Special Counsel, but McGahn responded through his counsel that that aspect of the story was accurate and he therefore could not comply with the President's request. The President then directed Sanders to tell McGahn to correct the story, but McGahn told her he would not do so because the story was accurate in reporting on the President's order . Consistent with that position, McGahn never issued a correction. More than a week later, the President brought up the issue again with Porter, made comments indicating the President thought McGahn had leaked the story , and directed Porter to have McGahn create a record denying that the President had tried to fire the Special Counsel. At that point , the President said he might "have to get rid of' McGahn if McGahn did not comply. McGahn again refused and told Porter, as he had told Sanders and as his counsel had told the President 's counsel , that the President had in fact ordered him to have Rosenstein remove the Special Counsel. That evidence indicates that by the time of the Oval Office meeting the President was aware that McGahn did not think the story was false and did not want to issue a statement or create a written record denying facts that McGahn believed to be true . The President nevertheless persisted and asked McGahn to repudiate facts that McGahn had repeatedly said were accurate.
b. Nexus to an official proceeding. By January 2018 , the Special Counsel 's use of a grand jury had been further confirmed by the return of several indictments. The President also was aware that the Special Counsel was investigating obstruction-related events because, among other reasons, on January 8, 20 I 8, the Special Counsel's Office provided his counsel with a detailed list of topics for a possible interview with the President. 830 The President knew that McGahn had personal knowledge of many of the events the Special Counsel was investigating and that McGahn had already been interviewed by Special Counsel investigators. And in the Oval Office meeting, the President indicated he knew that McGahn had told the Special Counsel's Office about the President's effort to remove the Special Counsel. The President challenged McGahn for disclosing that information and for taking notes that he viewed as creating unnecessary legal exposure. That evidence indicates the President's awareness that the June 17, 2017 events were relevant to the Special Counsel's investigation and any grand jury investigation that might grow out of it.
To establish a nexus, it would be necessary to show that the President's actions would have the natural tendency to affect such a proceeding or that they would hinder, delay , or prevent the communication of information to investigators. Because McGahn had spoken to Special Counsel investigators before January 2018, the President could not have been seeking to influence his prior statements in those interviews . But because McGahn had repeatedly spoken to investigators and the obstruction inquiry was not complete , it was foreseeable that he would be interviewed again on obstruction-related topics. If the President were focus ed solely on a press strategy in seeking to have McGahn refute the New York Times article, a nexus to a proceeding or to further investigative interviews would not be shown. But the President's efforts to have McGahn write a letter "for our records" approximately ten days after the stories had come out- well past the typical time to issue a correction for a news story-indicates the President was not focused solely on a press strategy, but instead likely contemplated the ongoing investigation and any proceedings arising from it.
c. Intent. Substantial evidence indicates that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the Special Counsel terminated , the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn 's account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny of the President's conduct towards the investigation.
Several facts support that conclusion. The President made repeated attempts to get McGahn to change his story. As described above, by the time of the last attempt , the evidence suggests that the President had been told on multiple occasions that McGahn believed the President had ordered him to have the Special Counsel terminated. McGahn interpreted his encounter with the President in the Oval Office as an attempt to test his mettle and see how committed he was to his memory of what had occurred . The President had already laid the groundwork for pressing McGahn to alter his account by telling Porter that it might be necessary to fire McGahn if he did not deny the story, and Porter relayed that statement to McGahn. Additional evidence of the President's intent may be gleaned from the fact that his counsel was sufficiently alarmed by the prospect of the President's meeting with McGahn that he called McGahn 's counsel and said that McGahn could not resign no matter what happened in the Oval Office that day. The President's counsel was well aware of McGahn's resolve not to issue what he believed to be a false account of events despite the President's request. Finally , as noted above, the President brought up the Special Counsel investigation in his Oval Office meeting with McGahn and criticized him for telling this Office about the June 17, 2017 events. The President's statements reflect his understanding-and his displeasure-that those events would be part of an obstruction-of-justice inquiry.

Replies to this message:
 Message 1932 by JonF, posted 05-16-2019 11:41 AM JonF has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 1932 of 5796 (852724)
05-16-2019 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1931 by JonF
05-16-2019 11:39 AM


Re: Some real evidence for Faith to deny
Footnotes:
781 Sophie Tatum & Kara Scannell, Trump denies he called for Mueller's firing, CNN (Jan. 26,2018); Michael S. Schmidt & Maggie Haberman, Trump Ordered Mueller Fired, but Backed Off When White House Counsel Threatened to Quit, New York Times (Jan. 25, 2018).
782 The Post article stated, "Despite internal objections, Trump decided to assert that Mueller had unacceptable conflicts of interest and moved to remove him from his position. . . . In response, McGahn said he would not remain at the White House if Trump went through with the move .... McGahn did not deliver his resignation threat directly to Trump but was serious about his threat to leave." Rosalind S. Helderman & Josh Dawsey, Trump moved to fire Mueller in June, bringing White House counsel to the brink of leaving, Washington Post (Jan. 26, 2018).
783 Rosalind S. Helderman & Josh Dawsey, Trump moved to fir e Mueller in June, bringing White House counsel to the brink of leaving, Washington Post (Jan. 26, 2018); see McGahn 3/8/17 302, at 3-4.
784 McGahn 3/8/ 18 302, at 3 ( agent note).
785 McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 3 (agent note).
786 McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 3-4 (agent note).
787 McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 4 (agent note).
788 Hicks 3/13/18 302, at 11. Hicks also recalled that the President spoke on the phone that day with Chief of Staff John Kelly and that the President said Kelly told him that McGahn had totally refuted the story and was going to put out a statement. Hicks 3/ 13/18 302, at 11. But Kelly said that he did not speak to McGahn when the article came out and did not tell anyone he had done so. Kelly 8/2/18 302, at 1-2.
789 Hicks 3/13/18 302, at 11. Sanders did not recall whether the President asked her to speak to McGahn or if she did it on her own. Sanders 7 /23/ 18 302, at 2.
790 Sanders 7 /23/18 302, at 1-2.
791 Meet the Press Interview with Reince Priebus, NBC (Feb. 4, 2018).
792 Priebus 4/3/ 18 302, at 10.
793 Priebus 4/3/18 302, at 10.
794 Porter 4/ 13/18 302, at 16-17. Porter did not recall the timing of this discussion with the President. Porter 4/ 13/18 302, at 17. Evidence indicates it was February 5, 2018. On the back of a pocket card dated February 5, 2018, Porter took notes that are consistent with his description of the discussion: "COS: (1) Letter from OM - Never threatened to quit- DJT never told him to fire M." SC_RRP000053 (Porter Undated Notes). Porter said it was possible he took the notes on a day other than February 5. Porter 4/13/ 18 302, at 17. But Porter also said that "COS" referred to matters he wanted to discuss with Chief of Staff Kelly, Porter 4/13/18 302, at 17, and Kelly took notes dated February 5, 2018, that state "POTUS - Don McGahn letter - Mueller + resigning." WH0000I 7684 (Kelly 2/5/18 Notes). Kelly said he did not recall what the notes meant, but thought the President may have "mused" about having McGahn write a letter. Kelly 8/2/18 302, at 3. McGahn recalled that Porter spoke with him about the President's request about two weeks after the New York Times story was published, which is consistent with the discussion taking place on or about February 5. McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 4.
795 Porter 4/13/18 302, at 17.
796 Porter 4/ 13/18 3 02, at 17.
797 Porter 4/13/18 302, at 17.
798 Porter 4/13/ 18 302, at 17; Porter 5/8/18 302, at 18.
799 Porter 4/13/ 18 302, at 17; Porter 5/8/18 302, at 18.
800 Porter 4/ 13/18 302, at 17.
801 Porter 4/ 13/ 18 302, at 17; McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 4.
802 Porter 4/ 13/18 302, at 17; McGahn 3/8/ 18 302, at 4.
803 Porter 4/13/18 302, at 17; McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 4.
804 Porter 4/13/18 302, at 17; McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 4.
805 Porter 4/13/18 302, at 17; McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 4.
806 Porter 4/ 13/ 18 302, at 17-18; McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 4.
807 McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 4.
808 Potter 4/13/18 302, at 18.
809 McGahn 3/8/ 18 302, at 4; WH000017685 (Kelly 2/6/18 Notes). McGahn recalled that, before the Oval Office meeting, he told Kelly that he was not inclined to fix the article. McGahn 3/8/ 18 302, at 4.
810 McGahn 3/8/ 18 302, at 5 (agent note); 2/26/19 Email, Counsel for Don McGahn to Special Counsel's Office ( confirming February 6, 2018 date of call from the President's personal counsel).
811 McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 4; Kelly 8/2/18 302, at 2.
812 McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 4; Kelly 8/2/18 302, at 2.
813 McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 4.
814 McGahn 3/8/ 18 302, at 4; Kelly 8/2/18 302, at 2.
815 McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 5.
816 McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 5.
817 McGahn 3/8/ 18 302, at 5.
8 18 McGahn 3/8/ 18 302, at 5.
819 McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 5; Kelly 8/2/18 302, at 2.
820 McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 5.
821 Kelly 8/2/ 18 302, at 2.
822 McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 5.
823 McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 5.
824 McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 5. McGahn said the President was referring to Donaldson's notes, which the President thought of as McGahn's notes. McGahn 3/8/ 18 302, at 5.
825 McGahn 3/8/ 18 302, at 5.
826 McGahn 3/8/ 18 302, at 5.
827 Kelly 8/2/ 18 302, at 2.
828 McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 5. Kelly did not recall discussing the Oval Office meeting with the President after the fact. Kelly 8/2/18 302, at 2. Handwritten notes taken by Kelly state, "Do n[:] Mueller discussion in June. - Bannon Priebus - came out okay." WH0000l7685 (Kelly 2/6/18 Notes).
829 McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 5 (agent note).
830 1/29/ I 8 Letter, President's Personal Counsel to Special Counsel's Office, at 1-2 ("In our conversation of January 8, your office identified the following topics as areas you desired to address with the President in order to complete your investigation on the subjects of alleged collusion and obstruction of justice"; listing 16 topics).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1931 by JonF, posted 05-16-2019 11:39 AM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1933 by Faith, posted 05-16-2019 1:08 PM JonF has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1933 of 5796 (852733)
05-16-2019 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1932 by JonF
05-16-2019 11:41 AM


Re: Some real evidence for Faith to deny
I'm leaving this whole mess up to the new investigation for the answers to all the relevant questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1932 by JonF, posted 05-16-2019 11:41 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1934 by Theodoric, posted 05-16-2019 1:16 PM Faith has replied
 Message 1937 by JonF, posted 05-16-2019 1:29 PM Faith has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 1934 of 5796 (852736)
05-16-2019 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1933 by Faith
05-16-2019 1:08 PM


Re: Some real evidence for Faith to deny
Classic Faith.
quote:
Don't confuse me with the facts. My mind is made up.
Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1933 by Faith, posted 05-16-2019 1:08 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1935 by Faith, posted 05-16-2019 1:20 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1935 of 5796 (852739)
05-16-2019 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1934 by Theodoric
05-16-2019 1:16 PM


Re: Some real evidence for Faith to deny
What those facts mean is open to interpretatiohn, best left for people who have the stomach and the authority to wade into all that stuff. I certainly don't have the fortitude for it. And most of what is presented here as fact is just lists and lists of stuff that is all open to interpretation, amounting in themselves to mere innuendo or gossip.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1934 by Theodoric, posted 05-16-2019 1:16 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1938 by JonF, posted 05-16-2019 1:35 PM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024