Don McGahn, ex-White House counsel, subpoenaed over Mueller report

a reply to: DBCowboy
a reply to: shooterbrody

A reply to you both as you're pretty much the same:
Name calling and epithet slinging is endemic around here
As two esteemed members, you are both fully aware of it

What's good for the goose, is good for the gander, as we say

As for DBC's on topic question :

Obstruction inquiry finds numerous ‘episodes’ involving Trump


Mueller investigated 10 instances in which Trump sought to use the power of the presidency to obstruct justice by either personally interfering with the Russia investigation or directing his aides to do so.
They included Trump’s request that the then FBI director, James Comey, drop the investigation of the former national security adviser Michael Flynn; Trump’s attempts to stop the then attorney general Jeff Sessions’ recusal from overseeing the Russia investigation; Trump’s demand that the special counsel’s investigation be limited to election meddling only; and Trump’s efforts behind the scenes to fire Mueller.

...

Mueller made clear he was not exonerating Trump of obstruction, writing:

The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards however we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

This is available to read everywhere
everywhere other than in Trumplandia's echo chamber....

More to the point : this is precisely why McGan is being subpoenaed

a reply to: Cassi3l

You list instances where he might have obstructed justice if he had done so, but justice was not obstructed.

QED

Time to put "them" on the defensive, in stead of allowing them, the offensive.

Commence Fire!!!

Declass!!!!

a reply to: DBCowboy

but justice was not obstructed.

No, that's not what Mueller says at all.
From the link :

if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards however we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

From the same link :

The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.

Mueller's conclusion is out there, available for everyone to read

a reply to: Cassi3l

Rich from the one making up cute names.

Have you even fathomed how the client attorney privilege would effect such testimony?
As mueller has concluded the president did not commit a crime and all.

a reply to: Cassi3l

But the obstruction charge was based on the collusion investigation, which Trump was proven innocent.

a reply to: shooterbrody

As mueller has concluded the president did not commit a crime and all.

See the reply to DBC, just above yours ....
Everything is out there, plain as day

a reply to: DBCowboy

I don't work with Mueller (do you ?), so not privy to the 1000 odd redactions
These redactions would surely have a bearing on Mueller's rationale to state :

If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards however we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him

and

The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.

Far from clearing Trump of anything, it's all highly damning.


Moreover, why does this part pass you by :

the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office

These are all Mueller's conclusions, don't forget
not an opinion piece ....

a reply to: Cassi3l

It's ALL opinion, ALL Mueller opinion.

the only factual thing in his report was that there was zero evidence of collusion which is what the entire investigation was based on.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Until the whole unredacted report is released
No-one has any evidence what-so-ever of zero evidence of collusion

As things stand, however, Mueller's conclusion
(Trump's corrupt exercise of the powers of office)
is still highly damning, no matter which way it's spun

It's up to congress to decide on the next steps

McGahn's subpoeana, however
- to stay on topic -
is another thing altogether

Another waste of $35,000,000 of our tax payer dollars.

a reply to: Cassi3l

Not much of what trump asked was in fact 'illegal" but it was political suicide which McGhan saved him from. Apparently more than once.

a reply to: Cassi3l

Accordingly while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime

you are correct it is

so how, with no crime committed, will attorney client privilege be breached?

a reply to: ColdWisdom

So it may in fact be wiser to just let the congress continue to investigate and hold hearings and then talk about it right up until Nov 2020.
A failed impeachment would only make him more popular.
While I fantasize about seeing him led out in chains I realize the more judicious action right now may be to just continue to call attention to the corruption right up until its time to vote.
Don't give him any ammunition. And point out continually that NYS is waiting on the other side.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Now you're talking!

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Cassi3l

Not much of what trump asked was in fact 'illegal" but it was political suicide which McGhan saved him from. Apparently more than once.

It's almost like McGahn was counseling the White House and providing them with legal advice. Absolutely astonishing!!!

a reply to: shooterbrody
a reply to: shooterbrody

Accordingly while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime

If you do need to quote something, at last have the good grace to quote the whole thing,
to do otherwise is being disengeneous, and i'm sure you're not disengeneous ... :

Accordingly while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime it also does not exonerate him

A failed impeachment would only make him more popular.

But endless investigations won't?
lol
Hope they keep that strategy.
You still have no idea whats coming?
You also have no idea how many you have lost.
lol
2020 is going to be a lot of fun.

a reply to: Cassi3l

What other portion of the report is needed?
Mueller found that the president did not commit a crime.

Unless you start from the perspective that trump has to prove his innocence, which we DO NOT DO in this country, what else is needed?

Trump in no way needs muellers "exoneration".
For you to pretend he does is laughable and shows you know little of our system of justice.

So again I ask you how will the proposed interview get around attorney client privilege?