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 …
-
-
I don‘t think it‘s quite that clear-cut. Atty-Client Privilege can *exist* for WHCO in some contexts, but McGahn could very likely not have *invoked* it here. NYT completely glosses over that, which is indeed a bit (searching for the word) funny ;)
-
Explain please?
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.