This piece is (searching for the word) funny. It confuses WHCO with personal lawyer. It doesn't mention that one thing McGahn produced (Flynn report) was badly misleading. It uses the word "cooperate" in a misleading way. It continues to treat obstruction as only investigation.https://twitter.com/JasonLeopold/status/1030879950872576001 …
-
-
This is why you should never repeat Rudy G's line that the only investigation is obstruction. It makes you look as dumb as the President's lawyers, who at least have the excuse that they're engaging in PR.
Show this thread -
When you accept that obstruction is only investigation you look as stupid as Trump's lawyers (and they have excuse that they're engaging in willful PR). Also, Dowd's claims abt cooperation are objectively false.pic.twitter.com/xrb4Ijzl69
Show this thread -
For those asking what I mean abt Flynn report, this thread describes how it sounds like McGahn's report was designed to cover-up aspects of Flynn's firing (the firing was not just obstruction, btw). https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/06/03/the-giant-holes-in-trumps-mike-flynn-story-point-to-collusion-not-obstruction/ …
Show this thread -
Given that we knew of 24 hours across two days already, if this story wanted to, you know, break news, they could tell us when the follow-up appearance was.pic.twitter.com/TtfRqXXZk4
Show this thread -
Actually, I take it back. That article is not ENTIRELY a misleading PR piece. This is important reporting.




pic.twitter.com/wUuFuLIN1v
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This statement, believe it or not, is factual. Meuller's job is to collect evidence, he does not necessarily have the duty or authority to charge Trump himself. He would certainly expect congress to push for charges under Rosenstein.
-
NO ITS NOT FACTUAL.
-
Would you like to back up your statement with some facts of your own, or at least an argument of some kind? Meuller is an investigator. He will present his evidence to his boss and to Congress. He is very unlikely to file charges levied against the POTUS himself.
-
Why don't you go find me the "report" that Mueller has submitted to Congress here:https://www.justice.gov/sco
-
No such report has been submitted to SCOTUS or Congress. It will be submitted to Congress upon the conclusion of the investigation. Mueller does not have the power to impeach, Congress does, and just like Nixon, they likely will. If they aren't criminally implicit.
-
So you're saying that Mueller has laid out a great deal about the crimes involved already without a report to Congress. Huh. And yet you don't understand the significance of that.
-
Are we talking about charges levied against the "president" or his cronies? You don't seem to want to stay on track. My comments were in regards to charging a sitting POTUS with high crimes or misdemeanors. Not criminals left in his wake. Mueller will allow congress this honor.
-
Not if he’s smart, he won’t. This Congress has no honor (with the exception of them allowing Mueller to continue to operate).
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
I don’t get this. The SC has argued in support of his authority that he is an inferior officer of the DOJ. Hence, he’s bound by DOJ regs, including the one that says no indictments of a sitting president. Since he’s inferior, the report will go to Rosenstein in the first instance
-
Trump's actions can be described in an indictment w/o indicting him. Rudy wants you to forget that.
-
If it came to it, I am rather sweet on the phrasing: un-indicted co-conspirator
-
So far, Mueller’s complaints haven’t named any. The identities typically are disclosed in discovery.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
And "Mr. Mueller has told the president’s lawyers that he will follow Justice Department guidance that sitting presidents cannot be indicted." Says who?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Is sending a report to Congress not the most likely option? Genuinely asking.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This was fed to the Times by the WH. Why?
-
Someone trying to push McGahn out
-
I assumed Flood was taking over WHCO after Kavanaugh confirmation and the midterms. Something else is going on.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.