• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Status
Not open for further replies.

ArkhamFantasy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,581
One could theorize that Barr convinced Mueller to end his investigation by spinning them out to places where it would be easier for Barr to control and harder for the media to keep track of, but I'm not in a place where I think Mueller would acquiesce to such a transparent ploy yet.

Mueller strikes me as the type of guy who's always going to follow the law, the law says the AG is his boss, so if Barr told him to wrap it up, then he's going to wrap it up. Even if he know's Barr's intent is corrupt.
 

AnotherNils

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,936
Mueller strikes me as the type of guy who's always going to follow the law, the law says the AG is his boss, so if Barr told him to wrap it up, then he's going to wrap it up. Even if he know's Barr's intent is corrupt.
It's a difficult act to classify, as far as pressure and tampering goes.

Anyway, nothing a good hearing can't get at.

Pretty sure states can if they choose to.



Republicans leaking that Dems are trying to get Trump financial info

I'm curious who the audience is for this?
 

NihonTiger

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,539
I wouldn't doubt that Republican victories might have been due to Kasich's popularity in this state, rather than Trump's.

That was very much true. DeWine only embraced Trump at the end of the campaign when he needed to. He's been Kasich-lite the entire time in office, with the same results of the state legislature shitting on his plans so far.
 

Antrax

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,338
Yeah, this is factually inaccurate. It's 10 miles squared (100sq mi), not 10 square miles. The original plot for DC included land on the Virginia side of the river that was a 10x10 zone. It was meant to be a failsafe to keep the urban and commercial hubs where they already were and not create some megacity over time.

I don't think that really changes the argument. The "federal district" has a max size but not a minimum. So shrinking it is fair play.

Well that and none of them really oppose the ACA ideologically, they just hate that Obama gets all the credit for it. If McCain had won the presidency in 08 and proposed the exact same bill it would have gotten 80 votes in the Senate.


The white tech libertarians have an annoying (and frankly, dangerous) belief that if we just give a platform to hate groups and let them air out their beliefs, normal people will obviously be so repelled by it they'll see how crazy it is and no one will listen to them!

And if they end up winning supporters, it's liberals' fault for not coming up with a compelling enough counterargument, but also we can't point out that they're bigoted in any way, because that would really be just as bad.

Yeah they look at a Richard Spencer event where 95% of the crowd hates him and call it a success, but guys like that were going in with the 5% in mind. That's why they hate deplatforming; they only thrive on the 5%, and if you cut them off from that, they're going broke in less than a year.
 

cameron

The Fallen
Oct 26, 2017
23,857

Yamiche Alcindor @Yamiche

President Trump said clearly today that Republicans don't have a healthcare plan yet. Instead, Trump said Republicans are "coming up with plans" to replace the ACA but that they will eventually come up with one once the case moving through the courts gets to the Supreme Court.

1:07 PM - Mar 27, 2019


Steve:

Alex Moe @AlexNBCNews

McCarthy also said: Democrats have an offer right now Medicare For All which takes away all private insurance for individuals. Republicans believe in pre existing conditions and we believe in lowering the cost and that is what we are working on.

1:39 PM - Mar 27, 2019



Alex Moe @AlexNBCNews

"I talk to the president all the time and I always keep my conversations private," @GOPLeader McCarthy says when asked if he told the president that you disagreed on his healthcare decision

1:34 PM - Mar 27, 2019

https://twitter.com/AlexNBCNews


🚨Collins is writing a letter:




Steven Dennis @StevenTDennis

Susan Collins tells me she plans to write a letter to Barr expressing her disappointment that he is not defending the ACA in court. 1/

Susan Collins wrote a letter on the same subject to Jeff Sessions; she hoped Barr would reconsider DOJ's refusal to defend the ACA but instead he went from no pre-ex to total annihilation. 2/

8:22 PM - Mar 26, 2019



Steven Dennis @StevenTDennis

The letter is still being drafted.

1:20 PM - Mar 27, 2019

tumblr_o95jj1opsz1vyr6ijwh.gif
 

shadow_shogun

Fallen Guardian
Member
Oct 25, 2017
17,761

@mkraju
Pelosi told me, when asked if Ds will issue subpoena if no Mueller report by April 2, that she has "confidence" in her six chairs who are handling it "very beautifully." She would not say what her preference is.

Schiff separately told me "it's a leadership call" about subpoena
13:55 - 27 Mar 2019
 

wesker83

Member
Dec 3, 2018
1,181
I don't get it. This is logically an easy opinion to have
I think it pretty safe from public backlash too. 420 unanimous votes for release in the house and public opinion is for releasing it. I can understand being gun shy on more collusion investigations, but this seems like one of safest subpoenas they could issue.
 

Sho_Nuff82

Member
Nov 14, 2017
18,507
Must be hard, waking up every morning being concerned and disappointed with the people you caucus with every day on every subject.
 

ArkhamFantasy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,581
Yeah, im fine with pelosi pushing against impeachment, but she shouldn't be scared of getting access to a report that was specifically made for congress.
 

cameron

The Fallen
Oct 26, 2017
23,857




Frank Thorp V @frankthorp

Sen @MittRomney: "I think the federal government should continue to support the Special Olympics - it plays a very important role and allows many many Americans and many people around the world."

2:07 PM - Mar 27, 2019


Craig Caplan @CraigCaplan

Ed Sec Betsy DeVos "corrects the record on Trump Administration support for students with disabilities":

"The Special Olympics is not a federal program. It's a private organization. I love its work, and I have personally supported its mission."


d2rr9v4wsaeojkjapkbx.jpg



"But given our current budget realities, the federal government cannot fund every worthy program, particularly ones that enjoy robust support from private donations."-Ed Sec DeVos

1:44 PM - Mar 27, 2019
 

BoboBrazil

Attempted to circumvent a ban with an alt
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
18,765
Dems will lose focus on the Mueller cover up by Barr and Trump due to WH and DOJ throwing this healthcare stuff out there as a planned distraction . Barr will never release the full report.
 

Dark Knight

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,389




Frank Thorp V @frankthorp

Sen @MittRomney: "I think the federal government should continue to support the Special Olympics - it plays a very important role and allows many many Americans and many people around the world."

2:07 PM - Mar 27, 2019


Craig Caplan @CraigCaplan

Ed Sec Betsy DeVos "corrects the record on Trump Administration support for students with disabilities":

"The Special Olympics is not a federal program. It's a private organization. I love its work, and I have personally supported its mission."


d2rr9v4wsaeojkjapkbx.jpg



"But given our current budget realities, the federal government cannot fund every worthy program, particularly ones that enjoy robust support from private donations."-Ed Sec DeVos

1:44 PM - Mar 27, 2019

YOU HAVE 10 YACHTS.
 

studyguy

Member
Oct 26, 2017
11,282




Frank Thorp V @frankthorp

Sen @MittRomney: "I think the federal government should continue to support the Special Olympics - it plays a very important role and allows many many Americans and many people around the world."

2:07 PM - Mar 27, 2019


Craig Caplan @CraigCaplan

Ed Sec Betsy DeVos "corrects the record on Trump Administration support for students with disabilities":

"The Special Olympics is not a federal program. It's a private organization. I love its work, and I have personally supported its mission."


d2rr9v4wsaeojkjapkbx.jpg



"But given our current budget realities, the federal government cannot fund every worthy program, particularly ones that enjoy robust support from private donations."-Ed Sec DeVos

1:44 PM - Mar 27, 2019

Here I thought they'd hit us with a 'actually these budgets aren't set in stone' kind of deal but no. Dig in, fuck the kids.
 

DrROBschiz

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,514
Here I thought they'd hit us with a 'actually these budgets aren't set in stone' kind of deal but no. Dig in, fuck the kids.

I'm curious about Devos's stance that using government funds to subsidize charter schools for people of means is somehow a better use of our budget than helping those in need

Oh wait... I get it now

She's an awful person.
 

cameron

The Fallen
Oct 26, 2017
23,857


ABC News: Transcript: Former Trump legal team spokesman Mark Corallo on ABC News' 'The Investigation' podcast
MOSK: What's going to happen with the House Democrats? Imagine for us what that looks like. If they call Bob Mueller to testify before them how will he handle that? What will that look like?
CORALLO: He will be respectful. He will answer their questions. He will keep his remarks based of facts. And it will be frustrating for Congress and Democrats will do exactly what Republicans would have done in the same situation. They'll overplay their hand. You know, I, when I got my letter from Chairman Nadler, you know, my brother calls me because he'd seen my name in the paper and then he started ranting and raving, ah this is garbage. You know, what are you doing? With these guys, these Democrats and I said hey, hey if I was there, we'd be doing the same thing. You know this is politics.

VLASTO: The reason why they're sending you a letter, the Democrats, not just about the Air Force One meeting but I think you had another conversation, right? With the president?
CORALLO: Yeah.
VLASTO: And hope Hicks?
CORALLO: Correct.
VLASTO: I think there's some disagreement there?
CORALLO: (LAUGH) Yeah.
VLSATO: Can you walk me through that?
CORALLO: Sure. So, on that evening when I sort of - I think it was like July 8th or something. My phone starts going off the hook, because I guess the New York Times is breaking the story, and we didn't even know the New York Times was following the story, which is a whole other story. Any rate. And then my phone rings and it's Hope Hicks. So, she just started laying into me. And, then she admitted that yes, they had crafted this statement on Air Force One and that they'd handled it. You know, she said, I had the New York Times handled and I'm going - you did? You work in the White House. This is a private matter. This is not the president's conduct of his office. This is matters to do with him as a private citizen, really, not even him. This has to do with his son, son in law, and former campaign director. So, so I just I listened to her yell and then I said well you know you've probably made yourself a witness in a federal criminal investigation. Way to go, young lady. The next day I was home and the phone rings again. And it's the White House. I'd pick it up and it's Hope. And she says you know hold for a moment for the president. Oh. Great. Now, they're both going to rip into me, so they both start to sort of lay into me and he's laying into me for, for you know who approved this statement. I said, "Mr. President please talk to your lawyers about this. Don't talk to me about this. Talk to your lawyers." You know, I was very aware that there were no lawyers on that conversation, on the phone. A bedrock principle of our legal system is the attorney client privilege. And I was just very aware that without an attorney on the phone, there was no privilege not to mention the fact, that there was no executive privilege because I don't work for the White House.
MOSK: So, when you talk about recklessness you're talking about situations like this where they are creating risk unnecessarily?
CORALLO: They are creating risk unnecessarily. The idea that a 20-something press aide would put the president of the United States on the phone to talk about a federal criminal investigation, without his attorneys on the phone, to protect the privilege and that the president wasn't aware of it was just astounding to me. And terrifying. And I just pointed out that the statement that they put out on Air Force One or from Air Force One was inaccurate. That this was not going to go away. And because it was inaccurate, an inaccurate statement - it was only going to inflame the story over the next few days and eventually the New York Times and every other, you know, media outlet was going to get the truth and then they were going to look, well, the way they did. Like they were trying to hide something.
VLASTO: And made the Mueller Investigation blow up after that
CORALLO: Right.
VLASTO: That was the fuse.
CORALLO: Yeah and so I pointed out that the statement was inaccurate and that there were documents, that I understood there were documents that would prove that. Hope Hicks replied to me when I, when I said look there are you know there are documents. She said, well nobody's ever going to see those documents. Which you know made my throat dry up immediately. And I just - at that point I just said, Mr. President we can't talk about this anymore. You got to talk to your lawyers. And for me, it was just the fact that she was even A. that you would say something like that in the presence of the president the United States. That you would not be aware that that could be construed as obstruction. Right? The threat to withhold documents? Like what does that mean that no one's ever going to see them? What are you gonna destroy them? She showed a complete lack of understanding of the situation and was completely in over her head.
VLSATO: Right. But it's not criminal, but it goes back to what you were saying before.
CORALLO: Right. It's not, it's not.
VLASTO: Sometimes you have to show criminal intent.
CORALLO: Right. I wasn't really worried as much about the stakes in a criminal investigation. I was more worried about a potential impeachment down the road. And, you know, that's the kind of thing that definitely goes to, you know, impeachable offenses. If you're going to, if you're going to charge impeachable offenses in articles of impeachment. Those are the kinds of stories that come up.
MOSK: And this I assume came up in your interview with the special counsel?
CORALLO: Yeah. Oh absolutely. They wanted to know, and they asked me, and they said well you know Miss Hicks says that that didn't happen. And they asked me how sure I was, and I said 100 percent. You know, I mean look - this was, you know, again I've used the word reckless over and over again. It was reckless.
PHILLIPS: So, should we be able to see the entire report?
CORALLO: I think we should see the entire report. I think even more importantly, and I'd urged this early on - the president should have declassified it or should now declassify everything. We all have a right to know. This is - we've gotten to a point in America where we just sort of knee jerk - oh well if the FBI says it's this way then it must be because they're all great guys and you know the Justice Department says it's this way oh then well you know what would their -
PHILLIPS: Are you talking about the source material as well?
CORALLO: I'm talking about all –
PHILLIPS: Cause, no White House would ever want to release source material.
CORALLO: I mean, I think that we the people have a right to know.
More in the link.
 

Diablos

has a title.
Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,640


ABC News: Transcript: Former Trump legal team spokesman Mark Corallo on ABC News' 'The Investigation' podcast
MOSK: What's going to happen with the House Democrats? Imagine for us what that looks like. If they call Bob Mueller to testify before them how will he handle that? What will that look like?
CORALLO: He will be respectful. He will answer their questions. He will keep his remarks based of facts. And it will be frustrating for Congress and Democrats will do exactly what Republicans would have done in the same situation. They'll overplay their hand. You know, I, when I got my letter from Chairman Nadler, you know, my brother calls me because he'd seen my name in the paper and then he started ranting and raving, ah this is garbage. You know, what are you doing? With these guys, these Democrats and I said hey, hey if I was there, we'd be doing the same thing. You know this is politics.

VLASTO: The reason why they're sending you a letter, the Democrats, not just about the Air Force One meeting but I think you had another conversation, right? With the president?
CORALLO: Yeah.
VLASTO: And hope Hicks?
CORALLO: Correct.
VLASTO: I think there's some disagreement there?
CORALLO: (LAUGH) Yeah.
VLSATO: Can you walk me through that?
CORALLO: Sure. So, on that evening when I sort of - I think it was like July 8th or something. My phone starts going off the hook, because I guess the New York Times is breaking the story, and we didn't even know the New York Times was following the story, which is a whole other story. Any rate. And then my phone rings and it's Hope Hicks. So, she just started laying into me. And, then she admitted that yes, they had crafted this statement on Air Force One and that they'd handled it. You know, she said, I had the New York Times handled and I'm going - you did? You work in the White House. This is a private matter. This is not the president's conduct of his office. This is matters to do with him as a private citizen, really, not even him. This has to do with his son, son in law, and former campaign director. So, so I just I listened to her yell and then I said well you know you've probably made yourself a witness in a federal criminal investigation. Way to go, young lady. The next day I was home and the phone rings again. And it's the White House. I'd pick it up and it's Hope. And she says you know hold for a moment for the president. Oh. Great. Now, they're both going to rip into me, so they both start to sort of lay into me and he's laying into me for, for you know who approved this statement. I said, "Mr. President please talk to your lawyers about this. Don't talk to me about this. Talk to your lawyers." You know, I was very aware that there were no lawyers on that conversation, on the phone. A bedrock principle of our legal system is the attorney client privilege. And I was just very aware that without an attorney on the phone, there was no privilege not to mention the fact, that there was no executive privilege because I don't work for the White House.
MOSK: So, when you talk about recklessness you're talking about situations like this where they are creating risk unnecessarily?
CORALLO: They are creating risk unnecessarily. The idea that a 20-something press aide would put the president of the United States on the phone to talk about a federal criminal investigation, without his attorneys on the phone, to protect the privilege and that the president wasn't aware of it was just astounding to me. And terrifying. And I just pointed out that the statement that they put out on Air Force One or from Air Force One was inaccurate. That this was not going to go away. And because it was inaccurate, an inaccurate statement - it was only going to inflame the story over the next few days and eventually the New York Times and every other, you know, media outlet was going to get the truth and then they were going to look, well, the way they did. Like they were trying to hide something.
VLASTO: And made the Mueller Investigation blow up after that
CORALLO: Right.
VLASTO: That was the fuse.
CORALLO: Yeah and so I pointed out that the statement was inaccurate and that there were documents, that I understood there were documents that would prove that. Hope Hicks replied to me when I, when I said look there are you know there are documents. She said, well nobody's ever going to see those documents. Which you know made my throat dry up immediately. And I just - at that point I just said, Mr. President we can't talk about this anymore. You got to talk to your lawyers. And for me, it was just the fact that she was even A. that you would say something like that in the presence of the president the United States. That you would not be aware that that could be construed as obstruction. Right? The threat to withhold documents? Like what does that mean that no one's ever going to see them? What are you gonna destroy them? She showed a complete lack of understanding of the situation and was completely in over her head.
VLSATO: Right. But it's not criminal, but it goes back to what you were saying before.
CORALLO: Right. It's not, it's not.
VLASTO: Sometimes you have to show criminal intent.
CORALLO: Right. I wasn't really worried as much about the stakes in a criminal investigation. I was more worried about a potential impeachment down the road. And, you know, that's the kind of thing that definitely goes to, you know, impeachable offenses. If you're going to, if you're going to charge impeachable offenses in articles of impeachment. Those are the kinds of stories that come up.
MOSK: And this I assume came up in your interview with the special counsel?
CORALLO: Yeah. Oh absolutely. They wanted to know, and they asked me, and they said well you know Miss Hicks says that that didn't happen. And they asked me how sure I was, and I said 100 percent. You know, I mean look - this was, you know, again I've used the word reckless over and over again. It was reckless.
PHILLIPS: So, should we be able to see the entire report?
CORALLO: I think we should see the entire report. I think even more importantly, and I'd urged this early on - the president should have declassified it or should now declassify everything. We all have a right to know. This is - we've gotten to a point in America where we just sort of knee jerk - oh well if the FBI says it's this way then it must be because they're all great guys and you know the Justice Department says it's this way oh then well you know what would their -
PHILLIPS: Are you talking about the source material as well?
CORALLO: I'm talking about all –
PHILLIPS: Cause, no White House would ever want to release source material.
CORALLO: I mean, I think that we the people have a right to know.
More in the link.

This shit is FUCKED. UP.

Where do we even go from here

Nixon would be jealous with envy
 

Sinder

Banned
Jul 24, 2018
7,576


ABC News: Transcript: Former Trump legal team spokesman Mark Corallo on ABC News' 'The Investigation' podcast
MOSK: What's going to happen with the House Democrats? Imagine for us what that looks like. If they call Bob Mueller to testify before them how will he handle that? What will that look like?
CORALLO: He will be respectful. He will answer their questions. He will keep his remarks based of facts. And it will be frustrating for Congress and Democrats will do exactly what Republicans would have done in the same situation. They'll overplay their hand. You know, I, when I got my letter from Chairman Nadler, you know, my brother calls me because he'd seen my name in the paper and then he started ranting and raving, ah this is garbage. You know, what are you doing? With these guys, these Democrats and I said hey, hey if I was there, we'd be doing the same thing. You know this is politics.

VLASTO: The reason why they're sending you a letter, the Democrats, not just about the Air Force One meeting but I think you had another conversation, right? With the president?
CORALLO: Yeah.
VLASTO: And hope Hicks?
CORALLO: Correct.
VLASTO: I think there's some disagreement there?
CORALLO: (LAUGH) Yeah.
VLSATO: Can you walk me through that?
CORALLO: Sure. So, on that evening when I sort of - I think it was like July 8th or something. My phone starts going off the hook, because I guess the New York Times is breaking the story, and we didn't even know the New York Times was following the story, which is a whole other story. Any rate. And then my phone rings and it's Hope Hicks. So, she just started laying into me. And, then she admitted that yes, they had crafted this statement on Air Force One and that they'd handled it. You know, she said, I had the New York Times handled and I'm going - you did? You work in the White House. This is a private matter. This is not the president's conduct of his office. This is matters to do with him as a private citizen, really, not even him. This has to do with his son, son in law, and former campaign director. So, so I just I listened to her yell and then I said well you know you've probably made yourself a witness in a federal criminal investigation. Way to go, young lady. The next day I was home and the phone rings again. And it's the White House. I'd pick it up and it's Hope. And she says you know hold for a moment for the president. Oh. Great. Now, they're both going to rip into me, so they both start to sort of lay into me and he's laying into me for, for you know who approved this statement. I said, "Mr. President please talk to your lawyers about this. Don't talk to me about this. Talk to your lawyers." You know, I was very aware that there were no lawyers on that conversation, on the phone. A bedrock principle of our legal system is the attorney client privilege. And I was just very aware that without an attorney on the phone, there was no privilege not to mention the fact, that there was no executive privilege because I don't work for the White House.
MOSK: So, when you talk about recklessness you're talking about situations like this where they are creating risk unnecessarily?
CORALLO: They are creating risk unnecessarily. The idea that a 20-something press aide would put the president of the United States on the phone to talk about a federal criminal investigation, without his attorneys on the phone, to protect the privilege and that the president wasn't aware of it was just astounding to me. And terrifying. And I just pointed out that the statement that they put out on Air Force One or from Air Force One was inaccurate. That this was not going to go away. And because it was inaccurate, an inaccurate statement - it was only going to inflame the story over the next few days and eventually the New York Times and every other, you know, media outlet was going to get the truth and then they were going to look, well, the way they did. Like they were trying to hide something.
VLASTO: And made the Mueller Investigation blow up after that
CORALLO: Right.
VLASTO: That was the fuse.
CORALLO: Yeah and so I pointed out that the statement was inaccurate and that there were documents, that I understood there were documents that would prove that. Hope Hicks replied to me when I, when I said look there are you know there are documents. She said, well nobody's ever going to see those documents. Which you know made my throat dry up immediately. And I just - at that point I just said, Mr. President we can't talk about this anymore. You got to talk to your lawyers. And for me, it was just the fact that she was even A. that you would say something like that in the presence of the president the United States. That you would not be aware that that could be construed as obstruction. Right? The threat to withhold documents? Like what does that mean that no one's ever going to see them? What are you gonna destroy them? She showed a complete lack of understanding of the situation and was completely in over her head.
VLSATO: Right. But it's not criminal, but it goes back to what you were saying before.
CORALLO: Right. It's not, it's not.
VLASTO: Sometimes you have to show criminal intent.
CORALLO: Right. I wasn't really worried as much about the stakes in a criminal investigation. I was more worried about a potential impeachment down the road. And, you know, that's the kind of thing that definitely goes to, you know, impeachable offenses. If you're going to, if you're going to charge impeachable offenses in articles of impeachment. Those are the kinds of stories that come up.
MOSK: And this I assume came up in your interview with the special counsel?
CORALLO: Yeah. Oh absolutely. They wanted to know, and they asked me, and they said well you know Miss Hicks says that that didn't happen. And they asked me how sure I was, and I said 100 percent. You know, I mean look - this was, you know, again I've used the word reckless over and over again. It was reckless.
PHILLIPS: So, should we be able to see the entire report?
CORALLO: I think we should see the entire report. I think even more importantly, and I'd urged this early on - the president should have declassified it or should now declassify everything. We all have a right to know. This is - we've gotten to a point in America where we just sort of knee jerk - oh well if the FBI says it's this way then it must be because they're all great guys and you know the Justice Department says it's this way oh then well you know what would their -
PHILLIPS: Are you talking about the source material as well?
CORALLO: I'm talking about all –
PHILLIPS: Cause, no White House would ever want to release source material.
CORALLO: I mean, I think that we the people have a right to know.
More in the link.


So did mueller just not know about this or not care
 

Surfinn

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
28,590
USA


ABC News: Transcript: Former Trump legal team spokesman Mark Corallo on ABC News' 'The Investigation' podcast
MOSK: What's going to happen with the House Democrats? Imagine for us what that looks like. If they call Bob Mueller to testify before them how will he handle that? What will that look like?
CORALLO: He will be respectful. He will answer their questions. He will keep his remarks based of facts. And it will be frustrating for Congress and Democrats will do exactly what Republicans would have done in the same situation. They'll overplay their hand. You know, I, when I got my letter from Chairman Nadler, you know, my brother calls me because he'd seen my name in the paper and then he started ranting and raving, ah this is garbage. You know, what are you doing? With these guys, these Democrats and I said hey, hey if I was there, we'd be doing the same thing. You know this is politics.

VLASTO: The reason why they're sending you a letter, the Democrats, not just about the Air Force One meeting but I think you had another conversation, right? With the president?
CORALLO: Yeah.
VLASTO: And hope Hicks?
CORALLO: Correct.
VLASTO: I think there's some disagreement there?
CORALLO: (LAUGH) Yeah.
VLSATO: Can you walk me through that?
CORALLO: Sure. So, on that evening when I sort of - I think it was like July 8th or something. My phone starts going off the hook, because I guess the New York Times is breaking the story, and we didn't even know the New York Times was following the story, which is a whole other story. Any rate. And then my phone rings and it's Hope Hicks. So, she just started laying into me. And, then she admitted that yes, they had crafted this statement on Air Force One and that they'd handled it. You know, she said, I had the New York Times handled and I'm going - you did? You work in the White House. This is a private matter. This is not the president's conduct of his office. This is matters to do with him as a private citizen, really, not even him. This has to do with his son, son in law, and former campaign director. So, so I just I listened to her yell and then I said well you know you've probably made yourself a witness in a federal criminal investigation. Way to go, young lady. The next day I was home and the phone rings again. And it's the White House. I'd pick it up and it's Hope. And she says you know hold for a moment for the president. Oh. Great. Now, they're both going to rip into me, so they both start to sort of lay into me and he's laying into me for, for you know who approved this statement. I said, "Mr. President please talk to your lawyers about this. Don't talk to me about this. Talk to your lawyers." You know, I was very aware that there were no lawyers on that conversation, on the phone. A bedrock principle of our legal system is the attorney client privilege. And I was just very aware that without an attorney on the phone, there was no privilege not to mention the fact, that there was no executive privilege because I don't work for the White House.
MOSK: So, when you talk about recklessness you're talking about situations like this where they are creating risk unnecessarily?
CORALLO: They are creating risk unnecessarily. The idea that a 20-something press aide would put the president of the United States on the phone to talk about a federal criminal investigation, without his attorneys on the phone, to protect the privilege and that the president wasn't aware of it was just astounding to me. And terrifying. And I just pointed out that the statement that they put out on Air Force One or from Air Force One was inaccurate. That this was not going to go away. And because it was inaccurate, an inaccurate statement - it was only going to inflame the story over the next few days and eventually the New York Times and every other, you know, media outlet was going to get the truth and then they were going to look, well, the way they did. Like they were trying to hide something.
VLASTO: And made the Mueller Investigation blow up after that
CORALLO: Right.
VLASTO: That was the fuse.
CORALLO: Yeah and so I pointed out that the statement was inaccurate and that there were documents, that I understood there were documents that would prove that. Hope Hicks replied to me when I, when I said look there are you know there are documents. She said, well nobody's ever going to see those documents. Which you know made my throat dry up immediately. And I just - at that point I just said, Mr. President we can't talk about this anymore. You got to talk to your lawyers. And for me, it was just the fact that she was even A. that you would say something like that in the presence of the president the United States. That you would not be aware that that could be construed as obstruction. Right? The threat to withhold documents? Like what does that mean that no one's ever going to see them? What are you gonna destroy them? She showed a complete lack of understanding of the situation and was completely in over her head.
VLSATO: Right. But it's not criminal, but it goes back to what you were saying before.
CORALLO: Right. It's not, it's not.
VLASTO: Sometimes you have to show criminal intent.
CORALLO: Right. I wasn't really worried as much about the stakes in a criminal investigation. I was more worried about a potential impeachment down the road. And, you know, that's the kind of thing that definitely goes to, you know, impeachable offenses. If you're going to, if you're going to charge impeachable offenses in articles of impeachment. Those are the kinds of stories that come up.
MOSK: And this I assume came up in your interview with the special counsel?
CORALLO: Yeah. Oh absolutely. They wanted to know, and they asked me, and they said well you know Miss Hicks says that that didn't happen. And they asked me how sure I was, and I said 100 percent. You know, I mean look - this was, you know, again I've used the word reckless over and over again. It was reckless.
PHILLIPS: So, should we be able to see the entire report?
CORALLO: I think we should see the entire report. I think even more importantly, and I'd urged this early on - the president should have declassified it or should now declassify everything. We all have a right to know. This is - we've gotten to a point in America where we just sort of knee jerk - oh well if the FBI says it's this way then it must be because they're all great guys and you know the Justice Department says it's this way oh then well you know what would their -
PHILLIPS: Are you talking about the source material as well?
CORALLO: I'm talking about all –
PHILLIPS: Cause, no White House would ever want to release source material.
CORALLO: I mean, I think that we the people have a right to know.
More in the link.

Is this real life
 

Linkura

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,943
Not federal, but three states - Mississippi, Kentucky and Louisiana - are having gubernatorial elections. We actually have a decent chance in all three despite being red states. Kentucky's R governor (Bevin) is extremely unpopular and the state party is still fairly strong, Jim Hood (the current AG in Mississippi) is running for the Democrats there, and the incumbent governor in Louisiana is a Democrat.

New Jersey and Virginia are also holding elections for their state legislatures. We're two seats away from a majority in both Virginia houses, and the State House just had its map redrawn to be much more favorable to the Democrats. If we win that, we'll have a trifecta there.

North Carolina is having special elections for two US House seats, the one left vacant by Walter Jones' passing and the one where Republicans cheated. Jones' seat is probably too red to be a realistic target, but the other one is very winnable, seeing as how the R had to cheat to win by a few hundred votes.
Don't forget that Kentucky's AG is running there, is popular, and is the son of the prior governor.

Bevin will get decimated.... I hope.
I WAS ON YOUR YACHT, BETSY.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.