Some brief highlights of the newly released transcript -
The point of no return …in McGahn’s own words:
"Inflection point," with that I meant a point of no return. If the Acting Attorney General received what he thought was a direction from the counsel to the President to remove a special counsel, he would either have to remove the special counsel or resign.
McGahn: …was concerned about, if I were going to reach out to Rod, Rod's reaction, how it would be perceived after the fact, and that it would cause potential eventualities to occur that would not be in anybody's interests, including my own. To answer the question you asked before, I did not want to insert myself into something that would cause me to be my own -- that would compromise my own ability to remain as counsel.
About McGahn’s role - Rosenstein and Trump - one thing to keep in mind is an attorney typically wants to mitigate their exposure/liability and that usually means they will try to remain silent or steer clear of an issue —especially if it means they unwittingly “stepped in it” this is something that is kind of SOP for attorneys and it’s rarely explained why…so keep this in mind as you read the Transcript
Was I concerned? Sure, I was concerned. Liability is a broad term. Anything from congressional oversight hearings, where you'd be asking me different questions about why did you think it was within your job as counsel to the President to raise a conflict of interest about golf dues? I would not have a good answer to that question if you were asking me that question and I had made the call.
So, to -- with an ongoing investigation of some sort that we could not possibly know the contours of, you don't want to end up inadvertently inserting yourself into that narrative in a way that would be unnecessary.
well that’s certainly an interesting response from McGahn…
“After I got off the phone with the President, how did I feel? Oof. Frustrated, perturbed, trapped. Many emotions…”
What you should know is McGahn is entirely correct here - that attorney are taught sometimes you need to just walk away. If you have a client that’s going to take you down with them - then your best option is to hit the eject button and to get as far away as you can from “the situation” sure some might perseverate over the intent of “resigning” but that’s usually coming from an individual who got their JD from Trump University…
for example on page 111 -
McGahn:
One, although, on the edges, I can quibble with The New York Times report, in the main, it was -- it was in the ball game of being accurate. So it didn't make sense to go and correct something that wasn't provably false in The New York Times v. Sullivan 1way of thinking. ,
Two, as a lawyer, I thought it would make matters worse, not better, by all of a sudden going out and trying to pick out a fight with The New York Times over something that had kind of [inaudible].
McGahn goes on to state:
There had been The New York Times piece, and there was a subsequent Washington Post piece that I thought got it a little closer. And to go out with some public statements just made no sense to me as a lawyer to do. I just didn't think that was a smart move.
…was deemed a fact witness and had already spoken to Mr. Mueller's team about this very issue, it made no sense to me personally to go out there and start re-litigating the details of something that I had already discussed with the -- with the Special Counsel's Office.
,I -- as I mentioned and as the report confirms, the President had instructed full cooperation, and it seemed to me that it would be perceived as -- as something off that -- off that path. And I thought, as one who tries to respect processes and that sort of thing, the time to tell my story was to Mr. Mueller and his team, not to The New York Times and the public at large fighting over a newspaper article. So it just seemed to be not something that made a lot of sense for a whole host of reasons that I just articulated.
To be fair while the questions asked could be viewed as probative - when you have attorneys asking and answering - there tends to be this false expectation that bomb shells will drop - a cursory review of the nearly 241+ pages it’s kind of what you’d expect. Underwhelming boring… however there are a few interesting factoids. For example on page 113:
Question: So, if you had put out a statement that the President was requesting denying that he had asked you to fire the special counsel and that you threatened to quit in protest, would that have conflicted with your prior testimony to the special counsel?
Answer (McGahn) I suppose so, yeah. I mean, it seems like -- that sounds like the opposite to me.
Q I would agree.
A Yeah. Yeah. Now --
Q So --
A And the report says this. I never conveyed to the President my intent to resign. So, to be fair to him --
Q Let's just stick with the first part of that right now?
A: You know, he could have read the story and said, "Gee, that never happened," unaware of the fact that I had talked to Reince and Bannon and --
But to be clear - Chairman Nadler stated:
Mr. McGahn also confirmed that President Trump lied when he denied the accuracy of the Mueller report, and admitted that he was the source for a Washington Post report that confirmed Trump’s direction to McGahn to remove the Special Counsel
Thus far I think this is a pretty important exchange as it provides insight into McGahn’s state of mind - specifically the calculus of having a client essentially ignore your advise and then McGahn wanting to limit his exposure
Much of which is confirmed in the transcript itself - specifically pages 114 thru 117 - page 114 reads in part:
Q But, if you put out a public statement that was the opposite of what you told Mr. Mueller --
A Right. Then he would probably think, was I lying then, or was I lying now, sort of thing.
After a short break the House Judiciary attorneys returned to the questions surrounding the Washington Post Article2 and this exchange on page 116 is pretty interesting - which reads in part:
Question: I'll direct you to page 114, footnote 781, where the Post article stated, "Despite internal objections, Trump decided to assert that Mueller had unacceptable conflicts of interest and moved to remove him from his position. In response, McGahn said he would not remain at the White House if Trump went through with the move. McGahn did not deliver his resignation threat directly to Trump but was serious about his threat to leave." - Was that accurate?
Starting on pages 117 thru 119 - the House Judiciary attorney puts McGahn on the ropes about his previously denials that “Trump never asked me to file a false letter to the record” or that “Trump asked me to ask Rosenstein to fire Mueller?
As previously assumed it was McGahn who was the source for the second Washington Post Article - he admits to it on page 125
I didn't leak, no. I did talk to The Washington Post. I was a source for that second story over whether or not I -- I thought it was worth -- because the press shop did not seem to be knowing how to get out that I never told the President directly I was going to resign, and I didn't think that was fair to the President to have that out there. So I made sure the second story was more accurate.
Listen I’m not trying to undersell this transcript but I’d be cautious of anyone who says “this is the smoking gun” it’s not - it’s a transcript of an interview that should have occurred TWO years ago - it’s not like Congress can impeach Trump for the third time and have the Senate Republicans vote to acquit him for the third time. At the end of the day - you have to ask yourself “what is the point” now it’s easy to say “well if McGahn had testified two years ago then Trump would have been convicted”
In my opinion that’s a non sequitur meaning as long at McConnell is in the Senate - there is a 0% chance that Senate Republicans would have voted to convict Trump. Seriously Trump incited an insurrection and yet the Senate Republicans voted to acquit him. So that’s my closing argument. Again it’s entirely up to you if you decided to hang on to every emoji laden all caps breathless tweets but I’m telling you to read the transcript for yourself and ask yourself:
“what happens next?” -Trump is out of Office, he was twice impeached and twice acquitted— in the end this interview should have occurred two years ago but even then I don’t think it would have been the “smoking gun” to convict Trump. Mainly because Trump is holding the gun - smoking or not
New York Times Company v. Sullivan. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved June 9, 2021, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/39 - which is considered a landmark ruling by establishing the “actual malice” doctrine Question: Did Alabama's libel law unconstitutionally infringe on the First Amendment's freedom of speech and freedom of press protections?
To sustain a claim of defamation or libel, the First Amendment requires that the plaintiff show that the defendant knew that a statement was false or was reckless in deciding to publish the information without investigating whether it was accurate.
In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Brennan, the Court ruled for the Times. When a statement concerns a public figure, the Court held, it is not enough to show that it is false for the press to be liable for libel. Instead, the target of the statement must show that it was made with knowledge of or reckless disregard for its falsity. Brennan used the term "actual malice" to summarize this standard, although he did not intend the usual meaning of a malicious purpose. In libel law, “malice” had meant knowledge or gross recklessness rather than intent, since courts found it difficult to imagine that someone would knowingly disseminate false information without a bad intent.
When will we be free of the scourge of mcconnell? No matter how criminally someone behaves that malignant turtle will subvert the Congressional process. Thanks Filey... TWO YEARS AGO THIS SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED (but it wouldn't matter in impeachment outcome). GRRRRRRRRRRRR.
When will we be free of the scourge of mcconnell? No matter how criminally someone behaves that malignant turtle will subvert the Congressional process. Thanks Filey... TWO YEARS AGO THIS SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED (but it wouldn't matter in impeachment outcome). GRRRRRRRRRRRR.
Argh!!! I have a patient exactly ...now!!! lol