I'll link to this in case you want to talk about it, but I'm not in the mood to have my agenda set. - Hallo friendsINFO TODAY, In the article you read this time with the title I'll link to this in case you want to talk about it, but I'm not in the mood to have my agenda set., We have prepared this article for you to read and retrieve information therein. Hopefully the contents of postings Article economy, Article health, Article hobby, Article News, Article politics, Article sports, We write this you can understand. Alright, good read.

Title : I'll link to this in case you want to talk about it, but I'm not in the mood to have my agenda set.
link : I'll link to this in case you want to talk about it, but I'm not in the mood to have my agenda set.

I'll link to this in case you want to talk about it, but I'm not in the mood to have my agenda set.

"Trump Lawyers’ Sudden Realization: They Don’t Know What Don McGahn Told Mueller’s Team" (NYT).

That expands on this, published by the NYT on Friday (and not yet blogged by me), "White House Counsel, Don McGahn, Has Cooperated Extensively in Mueller Inquiry."

And the new article dredges up something from last fall:

Last fall, Mr. McGahn believed that he was being set up to be blamed for any wrongdoing by the president in part because of an article published in The Times in September, which described a conversation that a reporter had overheard between Mr. Dowd and Mr. Cobb.

In the conversation — which occurred over lunch at a table on the sidewalk outside the Washington steakhouse B.L.T. — Mr. Cobb discussed the White House’s production of documents to Mr. Mueller’s office. Mr. Cobb talked about how Mr. McGahn was opposed to cooperation and had documents locked in his safe.

Does the Times ever consider that Dowd and Cobb intended to be overheard? They were speaking loudly, next to a NYT reporter.

I don't like being nudged to get excited about this — sudden realization, etc. etc. Is something specific and important happening here or is the NYT serving its own interests? Without looking more deeply into this, I'm inclined to assume McGahn did what he was asked to do and operated within his role as White House Counsel of protecting the institution of the presidency. That's different from Trump's own lawyers, who focus on this particular problem. And the longterm interest of the presidency is in preserving confidentiality and executive privilege. Trump with his lawyers wanted to cooperate with Mueller (or at least appear to be doing so unless and until Mueller goes too far). What is the sudden crisis?

And, yes, I know that Trump's lawyer Giuliani said "Truth isn’t truth." It's a fantastic quote for Trump haters to use to the hilt, but I'm not getting excited about it. In context:

“It’s somebody’s version of the truth, not the truth,” Mr. Giuliani said of any statements by the president in such an interview.

“Truth is truth,” the show’s host, Chuck Todd, answered.

“No, it isn’t truth,” Mr. Giuliani replied. “Truth isn’t truth.”

Giuliani was obviously repeating his point that it's "somebody's version of the truth" and not the truth. He's not saying truth isn't truth or there is no truth. He's saying what Chuck Todd called "truth" isn't truth.

Thus Article I'll link to this in case you want to talk about it, but I'm not in the mood to have my agenda set.

That's an article I'll link to this in case you want to talk about it, but I'm not in the mood to have my agenda set. This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.

You are now reading the article I'll link to this in case you want to talk about it, but I'm not in the mood to have my agenda set. with the link address https://infotodays1.blogspot.com/2018/08/ill-link-to-this-in-case-you-want-to.html

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates: