Sunday, April 28, 2019

Don McGahn and obstruction

Arguably the strongest case that the President committed obstruction has to do with the back and forth between Trump and White House Counsel Donald McGahn. If one was looking to make the case of obstruction, the thirty thousand foot view would be that the President attempted to tamper with a witness by confronting McGahn over reports that he had testified that the President ordered him to fire Mueller.

What we know now is that Trump did not directly order McGahn to fire Mueller. McGahn would not have authority to do so even if Trump asked him to.  More importantly neither account (Trump's or McGahn's) suggests that such an order was given. Both account suggests that Trump asked McGahn to talk to Rosenstein about whether or not Mueller could be removed over conflict of interests. The disagreement comes from whether or not that original request was upended by a second request by the President to have McGahn order Rosenstein to fire Mueller.

Quite obviously, if the President had valid concerns and wanted his legal counsel (from an executive standpoint) to discuss this with Rosenstein, there would be nothing illegal about having his counsel engage in such a discussion. In terms of ordering McGahn to order Rosenstein to fire Mueller, that would be one of those murky constitutional issues, but also an extremely strange request given McGahn would not have authority over the Deputy Attorney General.

So in the report, Mueller suggested that he saw no reason for McGahn to lie about the events. That being said, the order of events reported by McGahn seem to make a whole lot of logical, practical and legal sense, up until the part where McGahn believes he has been ordered to order Rosenstein to fire Mueller.

In other words, if the President's intention was to draw Rosenstein into a reasonable discussion about Mueller's possible problems with conflict of interest (hoping Rosenstein would come to a conclusion on his own to replace Mueller) then having McGahn be that person makes all the sense in the world. Both sides agreed that the first phone call made this request.

But if the President wanted to have Mueller fired, then there would be absolutely no good reason for him to go through McGahn for that request. The President suggests he could have done it himself, or he could have contacted Rosenstein directly and order him to do so. Getting McGahn involved in that sort of request simply doesn't make any real sense whatsoever.

This is where the sides separate and the dispute comes into play.

Now this is not to say that I believe McGahn is necessarily lying about anything. Nor am I accusing the President of lying. Both could be lying or neither could be.

Perhaps McGahn simply mistook the President's "urgency" for a new "order" that the President himself didn't actually believe he gave. The quote McGahn cites was that the President stated that "Mueller has got to go" and McGahn saw that as an order. That could certainly be seen that way, or it could also be seen as the President providing an opinion, similar to the sort of opinion a football fan might suggest about a coach or QB from a team who just disappointed them with a big loss.

Currently the President is still engaging McGahn on this and publicly demanding that he never gave an order to fire him. This is likely an iffy public relations play, but likely a pretty good preemptive legal play. If someone ever did attempt to charge Trump with obstruction, his public posturing rebutting the statements by McGahn, could make a case that the President didn't believe that he ever gave such an order. If that was his honest belief, than confronting McGahn and asking him why he told a story that Trump believed was incorrect would be a normal reaction from anyone, rather than some devious plot to obstruct anything.

In our system, the President (like any American) is considered innocent until proven guilty. A prosecutor is require to have a strong belief that they can proof a case beyond a reasonable doubt before they are allowed to bring charges. Is this a case that could convince twelve out of twelve jurors? What I see here is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt of anything. I see an incomplete story, that has several possible meanings, and all but one of those meaning clears the President of criminal wrongdoing.

39 comments:

Anonymous said...

Oh oh, Joe caught lying, Again.

"Biden admitted to Specter that “It was clear to me from the way she was answering the questions, [Hill] was lying” about a key part of her testimony. The exchange was published in Specter’s 2000 memoir, “Passion for Truth: From Finding JFK’s Single Bullet to Questioning Anita Hill to Impeaching Clinton.”

The View interview was a flaming hot mess.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Stonewall defense.

What the hell is he hiding?

You have never asked yourself why, did you?

Executive privilege.

Taken to the extreme, you don't see to understand, that if any President in the future, decides to violate the law, the ONLY remedy is impeachment.

Your willing to let this President do whatever the fuck he wants to do, and unless we vote him out or impeach and convict.

You hide behind the conspiracy theories and don't give a flying fuck about turning the country into a dictatorship.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Perhaps McGahn simply mistook the President's "urgency" for a new "order" that the President himself didn't actually believe he gave.

You think that you are the umpire calling strikes and balls. You believe that the President is above the law.

You don't give a flying fuck about turning the country into a dictatorship.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

The President is going to fight the subpoena for McGahn. Executive privilege.


John Dean strongly disagrees with you.

I can see why wp and Indy left the blog, because you're a closed minded asshole.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Says the paper pusher.


I see an incomplete story, that has several possible meanings, and all but one of those meaning clears the President of criminal wrongdoing.

If the house of implement impeachment hearings, your argument would be shredded.


We the people are going kick his ass out of office.

And you will believe that the election was not legitimate, because Trump told you so.

What an asshole.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Donald Trump Will Need to Hand Over His Tax Returns.
And while Trump is right to be skeptical of the Democrats’ motives for demanding his records (there is more than the whiff of a fishing expedition to the request), the Supreme Court has made it clear that “in determining the legitimacy of a congressional act [under the speech-or-debate clause] we do not look to the motives alleged to have prompted it.” The clause protects against even an “inquiry” into the “motivation” for the relevant congressional act.


It’s hard, then, to view Trump’s lawsuit as anything other than a delaying tactic, an excuse for defying an applicable federal statute while the case winds through the courts. But delaying tactics should not so explicitly challenge our proper constitutional order. Congress has the power — by statute and through the Constitution — to demand Trump’s tax returns. Courts should promptly reject Trump’s suit, and Trump should produce his returns. Trump may disagree with the law that grants Congress such broad authority, but it is the law, and presidents must comply with the law.

The National Review dares differ with CHT

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/donald-trump-will-need-to-hand-over-his-tax-returns/

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

presidents must comply with the law.

👹

Anonymous said...

Yes, he is.

Anonymous said...

What the hell is he hiding?"

Nada, so said Mueller.
You do except his finds and not filing charges against Your President???

Anonymous said...

More rumblings that Rod Rosenstien has been cooperating with the Barr Investigation.

Anonymous said...




this is really starting to get hilarious.

trump's political opponents have been reduced to somehow declaring "illegal" actions that are well within his constitutional authority to carry out.

and as we can see from the triggered alky-lanche of idiocy, the more solid legal footing the president is on, the more hysterical his enemies become.


need more popcorn.


Anonymous said...




and btw, i would not put it past mueller to lie in the report about what mcgahn did and said.

it becomes a classic "he said - he said" scenario that mcgahn is powerless to refute, and it provides the democrats with their only possible angle to take action against trump.

pretty clever, and not beneath a corrupt scumbag like mueller to pull this shit.



Anonymous said...

The President holds all the cards.

Anonymous said...

There are no Moderates Democrats in the US House.

C.H. Truth said...

Roger - what happened to screaming about collusion, Russia, and how the President committed treason? Seems like you moved on from that Pearl Clutching two year continuous state of frenzy you lived in....

and jumped right into the "next" giant conspiracy that you believe the President must be involved in.

anonymous said...

There are no Moderates Democrats in the US House.

And there are no conservatives in the party of trump.....LOLOLOL

Anonymous said...



The National Review dares differ with CHT


no they don't.

david french, their leading never trumper and the guy bill kristol tried to draft at the 11th hour to run for president against trump dares to differ.

and if you knew anything about NR, french, or the history since the 2016 campaign you wouldn't have posted something so ridiculous as some sort of wholesale declarative statement.

NR is basically split into two camps - one large, one small - the small one being never trumpers like french, goldberg, williamson, etc. they consider themselves more "pure" conservatives, of some such claptrap. they like to tut tut and recoil in disgust and horror at trumps latest tweets or comments to the press. they consider themselves holier than thou, and would never soil themselves by mingling with the deplorables. they are far too sophisticated for that.

NR pays both french and goldberg a couple hundred grand per year according to their latest financial disclosure, and i'm assuming williamson makes about the same.

they have a great gig. making bank for sneering at the masses of the unwashed - the guys who supply their food and deliver the books they write to amazon and barnes & noble.

once again you speak of something you know nothing about, alky.

go do something useful like shopping for your next mail order bride. and get another nurse, since your incontinence is only going to become more frequent as you age.

anonymous said...

As Trump waits on Obamacare, Americans list health care as top worry
Adriana Belmonte 19 hours ago


UP NEXT

Now Playing
2:10 0:46 1:46 1:47 1:13 2:45 1:00
1:42 2:10
Will Trump Create a Better Health Care Plan?

While President Donald Trump and Republicans decided to wait until after 2020 to attempt Trump’s campaign promise of comprehensive health care reform, Americans remain worried as ever about the availability and affordability of health care.

Over half of the respondents surveyed in a recent Gallup poll indicated that they worry “a great deal” about the availability and affordability of health care. Health care topped Gallup's list of potentially worrisome issues for the fifth year in a row.

Out of 1,039 American adults, 55% said they worry a “Great deal” about health care affordability and health care. About 25% indicated a “Fair amount” and 21% stated only a “Little/not at all.”

According to the Gallup poll findings, “a majority of Americans have said they worry a great deal about health care in each of the 18 years the question has been asked since 2001, more than twice as often as any of the other 12 issues most often measured.”

Commonsense said...

French ignore Watkins v. The United States: (Earl Warren writhing for the majority)

But, broad as is this power of inquiry, it is not unlimited. There is no general authority to expose the private affairs of individuals without justification in terms of the functions of the Congress.

Congress has no authority to poke into and expose the private affairs of individuals. For the good of every tax payer, I hope Trump succeeds.

Anonymous said...

New York Times is Antisemitic

Anonymous said...

Glad you agree that there are NO Moderates in the US House.

This following failed in the face of Facts.
"And there are no conservatives in the party of Pres.Trump "

anonymous said...

Blogger KD said...
New York Times is Antisemitic

And you are a goat fucking trump sucking idiot....!!!!

C.H. Truth said...

French (like every liberal making the same argument) misses the reality that the "law" that Democrats want to use to garner the President's tax returns requires that only the ranking member of Ways and Means committee, because the law is specifically designed to oversee the IRS.

The law that keeps being talked about also demands that the committee meat non-publicly, and that they are bound to keep any of the personal information that they find in any tax return private. The idea is that they are supposed to subpoena tax returns of individuals that they feel will prove that the IRS is not doing their job properly.

The law is not a means to oversee individual taxpayers, and the law allows for no public disclosure of any tax return without the express consent of the taxpayer in question.

So will they win in court? Seems like an uphill climb to tell a court you want the "authority" that goes with a particular law, but admit right off the bat that you plan to break the most important provisions of it.

anonymous said...

s following failed in the face of Facts.


BWAAAAAAAA!!!!!!! You are the prime example of failure, goat fucking asshole!!!!

anonymous said...

The law is not a means to oversee individual taxpayers, a


Your non expertise now in tax law is greatly amusing Lil Scotty....Open wide and swallow trump with out gagging is what you do best.....so sad and a great waste of time and effort....LOLOLOLO

Anonymous said...




french perfectly illustrates the power of TDS.

he's an attorney, has taught at cornell law, and should know this shit.

instead he proffers a legal argument that you'd expect from an L-1 at a fourth-tier law school.

anonymous said...

Funny how much time you all are wasting on French....seems he must be a real threat to deserve soooo much attention from you slurpers

Anonymous said...



it was the alky that introduced french to this thread d0pie. declaring that french speaks for all of NR.

try to keep up.

Anonymous said...

Can anyone remember a time telling for attention Denise contributed to the debate in a calm and rational manner??

Anonymous said...

Camel-toe Harris is a "no go".

C.H. Truth said...

Funny how much time you all are wasting on French..

French is just another expert that has gotten everything so far wrong.

being wrong seems to be a badge of honor for liberals, though!

Anonymous said...

Roger has told is the US Economy is not a top issue for 2020 Election.

Anonymous said...

US Disability Payouts
Obama rocketed it to 2.7 million

Today, Pres.Trump has it down to 2.1 Million.

anonymous said...

day, Pres.Trump has it down to 2.1 Million.

Great news goat fucker they probably all died....!!!!! Just the way you and trump like it....BWAAAAAAAA!!!!!

anonymous said...

US Economy is not a top issue for 2020 Election.


He is absolutely correct you dumbness goatfucking idiot.....

anonymous said...

C.H. Truth said...
Funny how much time you all are wasting on French..

French is just another expert that has gotten everything wrong....



BWAAAAAAAAAA!!!!! Just like you Lil Scotty, our law and tax expert!!!!! Too fucking funny!!!!!!!

anonymous said...

Trumps gift to the American people.....HATRED!!!!

Rising tide of white nationalism is at fore of 2020 race
The California synagogue shooting and President Trump’s latest defense of his Charlottesville comments have prompted some Republicans to acknowledge that the president is taking a political risk by continuing to stand by his words.

Just remember folks. trump said there were good nazi's that led the way!!!!


BTW...Nazi's are never good....now matter how you twist his words.....!!!

cowardly king obama said...

On today’s show, we get into the liberal lie about President Donald Trump’s statement following Charlottesville and how the media is helping spread the lie that he did not condemn neo-Nazis and white nationalists.

The reality is: he did so plainly, and we have the audio.
(imbedded audio in link)

It’s amazing how liberal lies become media truths. The “legend” that Trump called neo-Nazis and white supremacist “good people” has been around for a year-and-a-half, even though all media outlets have the video of the president saying, “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally."
They’ve just decided to ignore it.

The lie has come back again thanks to Joe Biden’s announcement video and, as if on cue, the media is all over it again. They’ve all jumped back on the lie, including CNN’s Jim Acosta — even though Acosta was involved in the exchange in which the president condemned the racists.
https://dailycaller.com/2019/04/29/liberals-love-trump-charlottesville-lie/

cowardly king obama said...


Sounds like liberals are deliberately trying to stoke up racial divisions and unrest.

Something that racists and the KKK did.

Well that is part of the Democrats roots