Interesting question: Who do you believe

transporter

Active Member
This guy:


Or this guy (From Volume II Page 77 of the Muller report):

On Saturday, June 17, 2017, the President called McGahn and directed him to have the Special Counsel removed.57I McGahn was at home and the President was at Camp David.572 In interviews with this Office, McGahn recalled that the President called him at home twice and on both occasions directed him to call Rosenstein and say that Mueller had conflicts that precluded him from serving as Special Counsel.573
and the footnotes:
571 McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 1-2; McGahn 12/14/17 302, at 10.

572 McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 1, 3; SCR026_000196 (President's Daily Diary, 6/17/17) (records showing President departed the White House at 11:07 a.m. on June 17, 2017, and arrived at Camp David at 11:37 a.m.).

573 McGahn 3/8/18 302, at 1-2; McGahn 12/14/17 302, at 10. Phone records show that the President called McGahn in the afternoon on June 17, 2017, and they spoke for approximately 23 minutes. SCR026 000196 (President's Daily Diary, 6/17/17) (reflecting call from the President to McGahn on 6/17/17 with start time 2:23 p.m. and end time 2:46 p.m.); (Call Records of Don McGahn). Phone records do not show another call between McGahn and the President that day. Although McGahn recalled receiving multiple calls from the President on the same day, in light of the phone records he thought it was possible that the first call instead occurred on June 14, 2017, shortly after the press reported that the President was under investigation for obstruction of justice. McGahn 2/28/19 302, at 1-3. While McGahn was not certain of the specific dates of the calls, McGahn was confident that he had at least two phone conversations with the President in which the President directed him to call the Acting Attorney General to have the Special Counsel removed. McGahn 2/28/19 302, at 1-3.
Before you answer, understand the following:

The first individual is an habitual liar who is supremely self centered.

The second individual made his comments before the US Special Counsel. In other words, he testified under oath.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
This guy:


Or this guy (From Volume II Page 77 of the Muller report):



and the footnotes:


Before you answer, understand the following:

The first individual is an habitual liar who is supremely self centered.

The second individual made his comments before the US Special Counsel. In other words, he testified under oath.
Based on the footnotes, McGahn did not recall very well what actually happened, and (if we're going to be all technical about it) lied under oath.

Trump, on the other hand, had every legal right to fire Mueller if he so chose.

So, given those things, I'll believe Trump. Mostly because, who the hell cares if he ordered McGahn to order Rosenstein to do it, or, if he did it himself? Or, if he never did but McGahn thought he did? Or, any iteration of any of the plethora of possibilities? Because, Trump had the authority to do it, legally, and Mueller was never fired anyway, so it's really a pointless thing to wonder about.
 

Yooper

Socket 1, Intel 80486
PREMO Member
This is an exercise in rhetorical questioning, right?

--- End of line (MCP)
 

BOP

Well-Known Member
This is an exercise in rhetorical questioning, right?

--- End of line (MCP)
Speaking of that, you might be interested in this article from American Thinker:


"Similarly, those who hold certain political views predictably share numerous characteristics. Jed Babbin has a column at The American Spectator, "The Democrats' Fanaticism," in which he lays out the impenetrable Trump-hatred of the Left. Leftists are unable to give up on the Trump-colluded-with-Russia meme they have relied upon to destroy the presidency of Donald Trump. They are obsessed, unable to address any other issue that requires their attention. They cannot accept the Mueller Report's conclusion that there was in fact no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Babbin quotes Churchill: A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. That perfectly describes the Democratic Party of today. What is interesting is the how much in lockstep are the political views these people have in common."
 
Top