In at least three voluntary interviews with investigators that totaled 30 hours over the past nine months, Mr. McGahn described the president’s furor toward the Russia investigation and the ways in which he urged Mr. McGahn to respond to it. He provided the investigators examining whether Mr. Trump obstructed justice a clear view of the president’s most intimate moments with his lawyer.I'm not entirely sure what's the upshot of this revelation. Either Trump is so sure of his innocence that he instructed the White House Counsel to tell Mueller everything or Trump's in real trouble if McGahn describes discussions where Trump sought to obstruct justice. But on that latter point, the article notes that Trump would be protected by both attorney-client privilege and executive privilege. The article further states that Trump's lawyers did not object when asked for McGahn's testimony.
Hmmm.....
2 comments:
Trump's in real trouble if McGahn describes discussions where Trump sought to obstruct justice.
...Which is exactly what the New York Times wants you to expect, despite offering no justification for leading you in that direction, while being careful to preserve "plausible deniability" that they ever said such a thing.
It's yet another round of classic Fake News - make the faithful lunatics once again get their hopes up with the promise of the umpteenth new development that will finally "get Trump". Then when reality sends the lunatics' hopes crashing to earth, they won't blame the Fake News purveyors (who were just valiantly resisting Trump), but will instead feel renewed rage that Trump has used his position to evade justice yet again.
I suppose the end goal is to send them frothing to the polls in November, but keeping them just short of having to be removed by ambulance in strait jackets after they get there.
The few times I check out the comment section in the NY Times, it's like the "Two Minutes Hate" from 1984.
We get it: you don't like Trump.
Post a Comment