Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

So let's look at the timing... it just came out that McGahn gave Mueller 30 hours of testimony and now he informs the WH that he's leaving "in the fall." Interesting.

---

Quote:

---

Well, I think it has everything to do with the fact that he met with Mueller. How can you be represented or have your White House represented by somebody who might very well turn out to be a crucial witness against you? When you sit down for 30 hours with somebody whose goal it is to try to prosecute you or write a report against you or provide evidence for impeachment against you, inevitably that information will be used. Even if McGahn didn't deliberately incriminate the president, he's probably filled some gaps. He's probably provided them with some information - a meeting here and there - that they didn't know about that now they know about.

And the idea of getting advice from a lawyer who may be sitting opposite you in a courtroom seems to be that the writing was on the wall as soon as it was disclosed that he had such an extensive meeting with Mueller. I think the key question is not whether McGahn goes - of course, it was inevitable he would - it's who replaces him.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Supposedly McGahn told Trump that the investigation would blow over if he cooperated with Mueller. It didn't. What McGahn failed to realize what this wasn't a regular, normal investigation, it was a politically-motivated witch hunt, and NOTHING was going to make this investigation go away, not even lack of evidence.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:


Supposedly McGahn told Trump that the investigation would blow over if he cooperated with Mueller. It didn't. What McGahn failed to realize what this wasn't a regular, normal investigation, it was a politically-motivated witch hunt, and NOTHING was going to make this investigation go away, not even lack of evidence.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Supposedly McGahn told Trump that the investigation would blow over if he cooperated with Mueller. It didn't. What McGahn failed to realize what this wasn't a regular, normal investigation, it was a politically-motivated witch hunt, and NOTHING was going to make this investigation go away, not even lack of evidence.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

You guys realize that you're not really losers, right?

---

Quote:

---

Lack of evidence? Trump's going down, for sure. The only question is when.

---

Quote:

---

https://thehill.com/policy/international/323582-kremlin-spokesman-russ
ian-ambassador-met-with-advisers-to-clinton

Kremlin spokesman: Russian ambassador met with advisers to Clinton campaign too

Russian President Vladimir Putin's spokesman said in an interview Sunday that the Russian ambassador who met with Trump campaign officials also met with “people working in think tanks advising Hillary or advising people working for Hillary.”

“Well, if you look at some people connected with Hillary Clinton during her campaign, you would probably see that he had lots of meetings of that kind,” Dmitry Peskov told CNN “GPS” host Fareed Zakaria. “There are lots of specialists in politology, people working in think tanks advising Hillary or advising people working for Hillary.”

Peskov said it is the job of Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak to meet with officials on both sides to talk about “bilateral relations.”

---

Quote:

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaig
n-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html
Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:
Clinton kiki, really? A Russian said Clinton did it and you're going with that? Of course, you're a Russian. I wonder if that's going to be Trumps defense. Clinton did it. I laughing again. No really, I am, I'm laughing again.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
NPR disagrees with you.

https://www.npr.org/2018/08/30/643237020/alan-dershowitz-on-don-mcgahn

Quote:

---

Well, I think it has everything to do with the fact that he met with Mueller. How can you be represented or have your White House represented by somebody who might very well turn out to be a crucial witness against you? When you sit down for 30 hours with somebody whose goal it is to try to prosecute you or write a report against you or provide evidence for impeachment against you, inevitably that information will be used. Even if McGahn didn't deliberately incriminate the president, he's probably filled some gaps. He's probably provided them with some information - a meeting here and there - that they didn't know about that now they know about.

And the idea of getting advice from a lawyer who may be sitting opposite you in a courtroom seems to be that the writing was on the wall as soon as it was disclosed that he had such an extensive meeting with Mueller. I think the key question is not whether McGahn goes - of course, it was inevitable he would - it's who replaces him.

---

Supposedly McGahn told Trump that the investigation would blow over if he cooperated with Mueller. It didn't. What McGahn failed to realize what this wasn't a regular, normal investigation, it was a politically-motivated witch hunt, and NOTHING was going to make this investigation go away, not even lack of evidence.

---