BREAKING! NYT Discovers Tweets They Discovered 3 Months Ago

Today, July 26, NYT has a breaking news story that Robert Mueller is investigating Trump’s tweets in a “wide-ranging obstruction inquiry.”

The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, is scrutinizing tweets and negative statements from the president about Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey, according to three people briefed on the matter.

Several of the remarks came as Mr. Trump was also privately pressuring the men — both key witnesses in the inquiry — about the investigation, and Mr. Mueller is examining whether the actions add up to attempts to obstruct the investigation by both intimidating witnesses and pressuring senior law enforcement officials to tamp down the inquiry.

Mr. Mueller wants to question the president about the tweets. His interest in them is the latest addition to a range of presidential actions he is investigating as a possible obstruction case: private interactions with Mr. Comey, Mr. Sessions and other senior administration officials about the Russia inquiry; misleading White House statements; public attacks; and possible pardon offers to potential witnesses.

This breaking news tees up this quote from Rudy Giuliani.

Mr. Trump’s lead lawyer in the case, Rudolph W. Giuliani, dismissed Mr. Mueller’s interest in the tweets as part of a desperate quest to sink the president.

“If you’re going to obstruct justice, you do it quietly and secretly, not in public,” Mr. Giuliani said.

It’s a really interesting breaking news story, because the [squints closely] NYT reported, [squints again] on April 30, that Jay Sekulow had collected this list of questions Mueller wanted to ask the President in March.

  1. What did you know about phone calls that Mr. Flynn made with the Russian ambassador, Sergey I. Kislyak, in late December 2016?
  2. What was your reaction to news reports on Jan. 12, 2017, and Feb. 8-9, 2017?
  3. What did you know about Sally Yates’s meetings about Mr. Flynn?
  4. How was the decision made to fire Mr. Flynn on Feb. 13, 2017?
  5. After the resignations, what efforts were made to reach out to Mr. Flynn about seeking immunity or possible pardon?
  6. What was your opinion of Mr. Comey during the transition?
  7. What did you think about Mr. Comey’s intelligence briefing on Jan. 6, 2017, about Russian election interference?
  8. What was your reaction to Mr. Comey’s briefing that day about other intelligence matters?
  9. What was the purpose of your Jan. 27, 2017, dinner with Mr. Comey, and what was said?
  10. What was the purpose of your Feb. 14, 2017, meeting with Mr. Comey, and what was said?
  11. What did you know about the F.B.I.’s investigation into Mr. Flynn and Russia in the days leading up to Mr. Comey’s testimony on March 20, 2017
  12. What did you do in reaction to the March 20 testimony? Describe your contacts with intelligence officials.
  13. What did you think and do in reaction to the news that the special counsel was speaking to Mr. Rogers, Mr. Pompeo and Mr. Coats?
  14. What was the purpose of your calls to Mr. Comey on March 30 and April 11, 2017?
  15. What was the purpose of your April 11, 2017, statement to Maria Bartiromo?
  16. What did you think and do about Mr. Comey’s May 3, 2017, testimony?
  17. Regarding the decision to fire Mr. Comey: When was it made? Why? Who played a role?
  18. What did you mean when you told Russian diplomats on May 10, 2017, that firing Mr. Comey had taken the pressure off?
  19. What did you mean in your interview with Lester Holt about Mr. Comey and Russia?
  20. What was the purpose of your May 12, 2017, tweet?
  21. What did you think about Mr. Comey’s June 8, 2017, testimony regarding Mr. Flynn, and what did you do about it?
  22. What was the purpose of the September and October 2017 statements, including tweets, regarding an investigation of Mr. Comey?
  23. What is the reason for your continued criticism of Mr. Comey and his former deputy, Andrew G. McCabe?
  24. What did you think and do regarding the recusal of Mr. Sessions?
  25. What efforts did you make to try to get him to change his mind?
  26. Did you discuss whether Mr. Sessions would protect you, and reference past attorneys general?
  27. What did you think and what did you do in reaction to the news of the appointment of the special counsel?
  28. Why did you hold Mr. Sessions’s resignation until May 31, 2017, and with whom did you discuss it?
  29. What discussions did you have with Reince Priebus in July 2017 about obtaining the Sessions resignation? With whom did you discuss it?
  30. What discussions did you have regarding terminating the special counsel, and what did you do when that consideration was reported in January 2018?
  31. What was the purpose of your July 2017 criticism of Mr. Sessions?
  32. When did you become aware of the Trump Tower meeting?
  33. What involvement did you have in the communication strategy, including the release of Donald Trump Jr.’s emails?
  34. During a 2013 trip to Russia, what communication and relationships did you have with the Agalarovs and Russian government officials?
  35. What communication did you have with Michael D. Cohen, Felix Sater and others, including foreign nationals, about Russian real estate developments during the campaign?
  36. What discussions did you have during the campaign regarding any meeting with Mr. Putin? Did you discuss it with others?
  37. What discussions did you have during the campaign regarding Russian sanctions?
  38. What involvement did you have concerning platform changes regarding arming Ukraine?
  39. During the campaign, what did you know about Russian hacking, use of social media or other acts aimed at the campaign?
  40. What knowledge did you have of any outreach by your campaign, including by Paul Manafort, to Russia about potential assistance to the campaign?
  41. What did you know about communication between Roger Stone, his associates, Julian Assange or WikiLeaks?
  42. What did you know during the transition about an attempt to establish back-channel communication to Russia, and Jared Kushner’s efforts?
  43. What do you know about a 2017 meeting in Seychelles involving Erik Prince?
  44. What do you know about a Ukrainian peace proposal provided to Mr. Cohen in 2017?

Two of the questions posed in March and reported in April are specifically about tweets. Another alludes to harassment that included tweets. And all of the tweets in today’s breaking news save one are covered by the tweets described in this list dating to March and reported in April, the exception being one tweeted earlier this week.

All of which serves Rudy’s narrative that the Mueller investigation is a frivolous exercise in trying to find obstruction behind the smoking bonfire of “collusion” rather than the conspiring with Russia instead.

In fact, this breaking news story never once mentions the “collusion” side of the investigation.

If Mueller’s addition of Trump’s tweets to the list of questions he wants answered is the “latest addition” to his interest in obstruction, then maybe Maggie and Mike should move on to reporting the actual conspiracy investigation?

105 replies
  1. Buford says:

    it seems these days, that for me to fall asleep at night, instead of counting sheep, I am counting charges against trump and his minions…I still can’t sleep knowing trump is still president…

  2. greengiant says:

    Wonder if they have any sources beyond the joint defense agreement,, and Trey Gowdy.

  3. SpaceLifeForm says:

    Suspect this NYT ‘story’ about pres tweets is just to distract from:

    A federal grand jury investigating President Donald Trump’s former personal lawyer Michael Cohen for possible crimes has subpoenaed the chief financial officer of Trump’s company, Allen Weisselberg, to testify, a new report said Thursday.

    [Remember, it’s Friday. It’s always Friday these days]

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      It’s more likely the Times is playing catch-up, trying to make something they reported three months ago look new. They’ve been trying to ignore the conspiracy angle from the start and to pretend that the president is trying to obstruct only a narrow range of things rather than Mr. Mueller’s entire investigation.

  4. earlofhuntingdon says:

    You have not spent enough time at the Ministry of Truth, Ms. Wheeler.  Had you done so, you would be less addicted to facts and accurate reporting.

    “the latest addition to a range of presidential actions.”

    To the uninitiated, that sounds like the NYT’s writers mean Mueller’s interest in those materials arose recently.  Hence, the breaking news treatment.  But since Times’ staff are assumed to know what the Times itself has published, that statement looks more dishonest than mistaken.  One accurate observation:

    “Mr. Mueller will stitch together several episodes, encounters and pieces of evidence, like the tweets, to build a case that the president embarked on a broad effort to interfere with the investigation.”

    Mr. Mueller might even characterize that “interference” as obstruction.  Given that a lot of people who don’t work for Mr. Trump would agree that that “broad effort” by him amounts to obstruction, it seems likely.  Nice piece of work, Ms. W.

  5. Kim Kaufman says:

    “Mr. Trump’s lead lawyer in the case, Rudolph W. Giuliani”

    Can’t believe that’s still true.

    • Peterr says:

      That’s because it was never true.

      But shhhhhh! Don’t tell Rudy, because that’s what he was told to entice him to sign on for this gig.

  6. Peterr says:

    LGM pointed me to Jake (@Care2much18), who has an astounding thread of tweets on Maggie H, laying out her history as being Trump’s watercarrier when he wants to change the subject on something, when he wants to “correct” something, or when he wants something introduced that benefits him. Jake (note to March: he’s Irish) starts with a couple of 2011 examples around birthism and Trump’s finances, which he summarizes like this:

    What we have here are early signs of a pattern. Donald Trump does or says something which invites criticism and condemnation. Maggie Haberman is then granted a direct interview or publishes a favorable Trump piece. Let’s see how the pattern continued.

    And it continued. Again, after noting several examples, Jake drops in this observation:

    Is Maggie Haberman a shill for Donald Trump? Has she carried water for him? The answer depends on your perspective but she definitely relies on access to Trump World.

    What I do know is when Donald is in trouble he runs to Maggie to get his side of the story out.

    Followed by this:

    For a guy who criticizes the Fake News media so much, it’s interesting he has given Maggie over 20 on record exclusive interviews over the last 7 years.

    I have little doubt “John Barron” was one of her many anonymous sources over the years.

    And this:

    I could have included dozens of other examples in this thread but the pattern and theme is clear for all to see. . .

    Go read the whole thing – it is amazing, and well-documented.

    With that as background . . .

    Sounds to me as if John Barron spoke with Maggie last night, and also arranged for Rudy to speak with her, hoping to get Helsinki and its fallout (poorly transcribed transcripts, US CENTCOM generals disagreeing with Putin over Syria policy, Pompeo’s testimony on the Hill, etc.) the Manafort trial, and the Mariia Butina story out of the news by trying to wave this not-so-breaking-news in everyone’s faces. “It’s all a witch tweet hunt, because they know there’s NO COLLUSION and they have to find something!”

    In Maggie, the Times has clearly found the successor to Judy Miller.

    • pseudonymous in nc says:

      The most generous explanation is that Maggie’n’Mike, as access journalists, give priority to the work product that comes from access: whatever Rudy and other sources say this week is news even if it doesn’t add to the story. Sometimes that process yields up actual news. Most of the time it simply tells you what narrative their sources want to advance this week.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        I don’t think she’s lazy at all.  But her priority – and that of the NYT – is to be the one with access, regardless, it seems, of the cost that they make their readers pay.

        • Trip says:

          That’s a form of laziness.  No deep dive muckraking.  The story comes to you, even if it’s bullshit.

        • bmaz says:

          Earl, this is right. Mag Habs is not lazy. Indeed, she is pretty hard working. The nature of her work product is the issue….

      • emptywheel says:

        Right. When there’s no other access, the access becomes news. Always works like that in big prosecutions where the prosecutors don’t leak.

        • orionATL says:

          why not use that nytimes access to trump to report on his reaction to the biggest news story of the last decade – the 800 lb. elephant in the room that no news media will acknowledge seeing – that donald trump conspired with vladimir putin to control the 2016 election and win the american presidency.

          how much longer can these idiot major reporters and their idiot major editors go on pretending that that elephant isn’t there? go on looking up at the ceiling and twiddling their fingers before they publish the no longer disputable truth for the american people to read and reflect on?

    • SC says:

      Yup, I went back to that long @Care2much18 thread on Maggie Haberman several times and ended up digging through various links below it and then reading a bunch of old Haberman articles. It’s one of the better pieces of journalism criticism I’ve read recently.

      It’s devastating largely because it contextualizes Haberman’s work from Trump’s perspective. What does Trump think of Haberman? Why does he continue to talk to her? What is he getting out of the relationship? The answers to those questions do not reflect well on Haberman or her editors. If the NYT was serious about its political journalism, editors would have long ago been aware of Haberman’s dodgy laundering for Trump and pulled her off the WH beat, Pulitzer Prize be damned. Maybe she’s capable of solid reporting in some other context but for whatever reasons her journalistic relationship with Trump is compromised. I realize that reporters have complicated exchanges with their sources/beats and at times it’s impossible to avoid being involved in the stories you are writing about but as far as I can tell, Haberman has not been upfront about the extent to which Trump has laundered iffy false/misleading/protective stories through Haberman and that lack of reflection/acknowledgement in Haberman’s work undermines her day-to-day coverage of Trump. (I know, I know, _everyone_ who touches Trump, including voters gets used/compromised but . . . again, Haberman has not, as far as I can tell, given any hint that she’s aware of, or compensating for, Trump using her. In fact, recently, she’s been digging a deeper hole and putting a lid on Twitter feedback.)

      I find it hard to judge a journalist’s work on the spot. When I’m trying to figure out if I can trust a journalist, I make an effort to read older work to see if it holds up in hindsight. I have only been reading Haberman for the last year or two (I scan the NYT perhaps twice a week) and I did not have a clear picture of her work. I recommend that thread for anyone who reads Haberman regularly.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        One would have to assume that, by now, the Times wants Haberman, in part, because of that access, regardless of the tainted perspective it carries.

  7. earlofhuntingdon says:

    “This trial would be a political trial….”

    Someone please put Chuck Todd out of his misery. He is in so far over his head, he’s an embarrassment even to MSNBC. Give MTP back to Katy Tur.

    I missed part of Chuck’s comment, but the SDNY and Mueller’s prosecutors are not conducting a political prosecution, nor are or would they be conducting a political trial rather than “a legal type trial” in connection with their work on Trump, his close associates, and their 2016 campaign.

    Todd’s sound bite, in or out of context, is a gift for the right. But it would not be an accurate description of the DoJ’s work here. In fact, it merits a formal apology.

    • Peterr says:

      I am coming to the conclusion that Chuck Todd does bad sports reporting, where he sees everything as a horse race.

      Katy, OTOH, is a journalist, who had an up-close seat to Trump World throughout the campaign. Other folks  laugh about Trump continually calling out the “Fake News from the Media Elites,” and the anger he elicited from his supporters. “Isn’t it funny how Trump goes after the press and the crowds eat it up?” Katy knows differently. So does the US Secret Service, who on their own decided that she and her camera guy needed their official protection to leave the arena after Trump riled up the crowds against her by name.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        I think “horse race” coverage is right, but done without any knowledge of the horses, the riders, or the courses.  It’s part of keeping his coverage as superficial as possible.  He raises topics that have been in the real news, because they’re already out there, but he never seems to add anything.  Katy Tur is a journalist, and a much better presenter.

        • cat herder says:

          He’s a used car salesman. I spent way too many years working in all kinds of dealerships and at every one of them you’ll find one salesman plays the Chuck Todd character. All the different characters in the typical dealership ecosystem are people who Used To Be A Big Deal at something (or at least have convinced themselves that they were). The guy who was tearing it up in college football and coulda been the next OJ if only he hadn’t blown out his knee that one time. The guy who was the big name sports reporter at the tiny little local news station in a tiny little town nobody’s heard of. The over-50 lady who used to be on the City Council. The guy who used to be a Ladies’ Man, who now is just a porn addict. And of course, the drunk. It’s a really weird, weirdly fascinating environment.

          • bmaz says:

            It all depends on who is the fastest to get the “ups” and who can work the “four square” the best. Well, that is the way it used to be anyway. Dealership bullpens are a wild little microcosm of weirdness and life though, as you wonderfully, and very accurately, describe. Heh, you left out the “former golf pro” character though.

                • cat herder says:

                  The last Chevy dealer I worked at… every Monday morning, we would come in and find one of the over-weekend cars in for service with a stone dead battery. Cars that were in for non-battery-related work. We eventually discovered that one of the salesmen who had to work Saturdays would go back into the shop, find a car, crawl in, turn the radio on and sleep until the battery died. Management didn’t understand why it was a problem. After about the third time I got hit I started disconnecting battery cables on all the cars that were parked in my bays when I left on Fridays.

      • arbusto says:

        MTP must fill NBC’s need to fill air time with vapid interviews and broadcasting disinformation by ideologues.  Tim Russert, David Gregory and Chuckles are text book examples in how bad our journalism has become under corporate America.

  8. booond says:

    Have to break stories to sell papers, get paid, and get on TV, which helps sell papers and yourself. What looks easier and pays better – replacing Katy Tur or finding new threads for a deadline in an industry on the ropes? Makes sense why Schmidt has a new story same as the old story – sorry Pete and Roger.

    And obstruction, with all those available tweets and soundbites, is perfect for cable channels. Conspiracy/Collusion is a complicated web with unpronounceable names. It’s like listening to a lecture on the Spanish-American War in middle school.

    Now, if they can combine obstruction with Mariia Butina then we’re talking OJ Trial.

    • Bruce Olsen says:

      I can only hope Mueller’s prosecutors would yield an outcome that better serves justice

  9. ANZAC Friend says:

    Have just cancelled my NYT subscription ($AUS27.00/month + $0.81 international transaction fee). Now going to Emptywheel. So informative plus independent. Even getting accustomed to Bmaz’s “potty mouth” : )

  10. Rusharuse says:

    Cohen- Trump knew of “Rusky dirt” meeting in Advance. There are witnesses. I dont need any more . . its over!
    Woo hoo woo hoo (Homer or Daffy Duck your choice)

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      If true, of course, it means he was briefed during and/or after the meeting, too.  If the meeting involved a crime, he would then be a co-conspirator.

      • Bruce Olsen says:

        “Can’t prove it! Number was blocked! Sad!!”

        Yeah, he was definitely consulted at every step of the way, at least by Jr. It’s who they both are.

      • pseudonymous in nc says:

        Chuck Grassley seems to think Uday has some ‘splaining to do. (Though so does Cohen.)

        And “I claim attorney-client privilege because a lawyer was in the room” may not go much further for conversations where one particular lawyer was in the room.

        Tomorrow’s Friday. Manafort’s trial starts next week. I don’t think the week’s over.

  11. J R in WV says:

    Maggie’s family is well to do in NYC, which takes an order of magnitude more money than being well to do anywhere else in the country outside CA. They are wealthy because her parents work for a PR firm, managing publicity for  – wait for it – The Trump Organization. Maggie got to go to private schools all the way from preschool to college, paid for by profits made working for Trump, managing his PR. Her parents still work for that PR firm today so far as I can tell, unless they have retired. Perhaps Trump no longer has a contract with them? I dunno.

    Any real news organization learning that a reporter’s parents earn their living from the reporter’s actual beat they are covering, would disengage that reporter in no time whatsoever. Either from that beat or from the news organization, instantly. The NYT having apparently no problem with their top Trump reporter’s family making their living working for Trump is obviously not a real news organization.

    But we learned that when Judith Miller helped foment an illegal war working with the last republican administration, didn’t we? I did. Will Maggie help foment another illegal war with Iran? Time will tell….

    • bmaz says:

      That is absolutely true as to her mother; her father, however, is a longtime columnist at the New York Times. Rusharuse below has a very in depth ling on the mother. And, yes, there are long and strong ties between her PR firm and the Trump Org.

    • SC says:

      Ack. I did not realize that Maggie Haberman’s mom, Nancy Haberman, is a honcho at Rubenstein and her dad is Clyde Haberman (who I read back when the NYT still had a local news section). That explains some things. I’m not sure that should disqualify her from covering Trump, though I guess I’d prefer to know the details of her mom’s work for the Trump Organization before saying that. Trump does work family connections, especially in NY. (Back when a slice of Trump’s work was coaxing community boards into allowing iffy development, he was infamous for working the families of people with a vote, handing out carrots to kids and spouses.)

      I used to buy the argument that Haberman’s access to Trump was valuable, that she was reporting stuff that only she could report and hearing things straight from Trump was useful news. But after reading through a huge swatch of her work recently, prompted by that highly critical @Care2much18 Twitter thread, I’m pretty sure that her work is so misleading, so filled with intentionally misleading crap, that I would have been better off never reading her in the first place. It’s Trump’s doing, of course, but Haberman has a responsibility to let her readers know that Trump is spinning fiction more often than not. It’s also the NYT fault for not providing enough context for readers.

      I have been looking around for reporting about Trump that stands a better chance of holding up a few years from now than Haberman’s and . . . I’ve been digging through David Fahrenthold’s Trump articles at WaPo. His work isn’t about access and it’s not particularly lively but he has vast knowledge of Trump and the Trump Organization and he’s good at providing context, good at letting the reader know what he’s nailed down and what he’s still working on, and his articles over the last couple of years are holding up well, IMO.




    • orionATL says:

      for some reason the exploitative haberman/trump relationship brings to mind the very close relationship between ivanka trump and the rupert murdoch families. while not directly related to the haberman-connected-to-trump-issue, the two together suggest what came to be considered wrong in this society, and was made illegal about 100 years ago – interlocking directorates in corporations :)).

  12. Rusharuse says:

    Like a circle in a spiral, like a wheel within a wheel
    Never ending or beginning on an ever spinning reel
    As the images unwind, like the circles that you find
    In the windmills of your mind!

    There’s Something About Maggie!

    • Trip says:

      Leak was from Trump-side, purportedly.

      They (Trumpish) think it damages what Cohen has to offer in cooperation, is the consensus opinion, according to giant talking heads.

      • SteveB says:

        If Cohen has evidence re DJT knowledge and actions relating to TT 9June meeting, then that evidence remains of value no matter what.

        Cohen remains a witness with the same credibilty problems no matter what.


        The strategy re the tape release, and the latest “bombshell” is the same

        1 to lie and attribute the leaks to Cohen: to diminish him in the eyes of TrueTrumpers, painting Cohen as a cornered rat twisting shit to save his ass

        2 if Cohen does not have much re TT meeting and DJT, there is value in overhyping claims falsely attributed to Cohen, as part of a the strategy of riling the base against him and generating talking points which will trivialise his actual account.

        3 If Cohen has valuable dirt re TT meeting, then there is value in getting ahead of the story and distorting the narrative : alwaysTrumpers will grab at the straws and the mud and make crazy bricks to defend the Don.

        As we’ve seen, they do not care too much about creating coherent sustainable logical reasonable explanations for what is legally difficult: all they care about is creating  traps and ditches and barricades, from which they hope to confound and confuse.

        • SteveB says:

          And right on cue:

          Donald J. Trump
          Donald J. Trump
          …..I did NOT know of the meeting with my son, Don jr. Sounds to me like someone is trying to make up stories in order to get himself out of an unrelated jam (Taxi cabs maybe?). He even retained Bill and Crooked Hillary’s lawyer. Gee, I wonder if they helped him make the choice!
          12:56 PM · Jul 27, 2018 “

        • Peterr says:

          There’s also another aspect.

          4. With Rudy’s public comments, he is letting other potential witnesses know “here’s the party line interpretation” of what happened here, without sneaking around and trying to communicate with each one on the sly.

          If even one person at that meeting confirms what Cohen says here, that solves Cohen’s credibility problem, and that’s the last thing Rudy & Team Trump want to happen. By leaking what they believe Cohen will say, it gives them a plausible vehicle for publicly refuting it and telling all the others to do the same.

          • pseudonymous in nc says:

            Yeah, that’s why I was speculating it was a new iteration of the limited hangout as performed by Scott Balber.Though I’m not sure that Rudy’s “I spoke to everyone in that meeting and they say it didn’t happen” is the ideal way to get people’s stories lined up.

            • Trip says:

              Can’t the Feds question Rudy about questioning other witnesses? (bmaz?) If he’s not their lawyer, then there is no attorney/client privilege in those discussions, is there? Can he potentially be hit with Tampering with witnesses?

            • Peterr says:

              To be scrupulously fair, I think it was as close to an ideal way as Rudy had at his disposal.

              Team Trump is getting increasingly boxed into a corner and its options are getting fewer and fewer. More and more, they can’t argue the law, they can’t argue the facts, and the table on which to pound is getting smaller and smaller.

              When Trump is pushing the idea that Hillary is behind Cohen’s statements, because Lanny “Who’s paying me today?” Davis is now the public face of Team Cohen, you know they are grasping at straws.

          • bmaz says:

            Remember, Hope Hicks spent serious time with Mueller’s shop. My bet is that Cohen is not so much in need of corroboration at this point as he IS the corroboration.

              • bmaz says:

                Do as you wish. I think, in fact I am confident, Mueller is twelve steps ahead of all of what the public knows.

                • Trip says:

                  This may be dumb, but I’ll throw it out there anyway. Any chance that this is not some harebrained scheme cooked up by Giuliani et al, but that the tape and info was released by a whistleblower inside the Trump administration?

                  • bmaz says:

                    No, the “tape” clearly came to CNN with Lanny Davis. The new stuff since then very well could, and I …. “think” …. is hangout by others.

                    • Trip says:

                      Laura Rozen posted this Bannon quote, which I had forgotten about:

                      “The chance that Don Jr did not walk these jumos up to his father’s office on the 26th floor is zero”.

                      Whistleblowers with ulterior motives, like getting “My Man” Pence in, possibly?

            • Palli says:

              Dec 8 2017 Hicks interviewed with Mueller, but she didn’t resign until Feb 28 2018. Hope sprang eternal for more than a year. Feb. only lists the 3-part foci of the investigation, what made her decide to jump ship? She knows what they asked & what she said & didn’t say in December.

          • SteveB says:

            Cohen signalled weeks ago in the GeorgeS interview that he had info re TT meeting by refusing on advice of counsel to answer a question about it.

            This whole false flag leak by RudyG is their prepared response.

            Cohen wanted a bail out and has now been told to get fkd. They obviously think their best option with Cohen is to see if they can ride out the storm, rather than buy him off, perhaps because the risk he represents due to the evidence ammassed by feds because of him is too great


        • Trip says:

          Yep. The talking heads did not agree that Trump leaking it rendered Cohen’s cooperation moot.

    • Bob Conyers says:

      It’s crossed my mind that someone is signalling they have recordings that not all the other parties have – Cohen is letting the feds know there’s more than what they seized, somebody who had access to Cohen’s computers is letting him know they have files, etc.

      I have no idea if this is plausible, though. Would the feds have gotten a subpoena forcing Cohen to turn over every recording ever made? For that matter, once they conducted the raid, would he get access to any audio files they seized, or does he somehow have access to backups?

      I’m highly ignorant of how seizure of electronic media works. Manafort’s iPods suggests to me that they don’t just hand back evidence, but I really don’t know.


      • Rusharuse says:

        The released tape seems to have been edited, the word Weisselberg appears to have been added later on a second audio track. Why? Did he plan to blackmail Trump anyway? Is Cohen techie enough to play around with and “doctor” digital files? Does he pay some 400lb guy in the Bronx to help him out and maybe use a 3rd party’s cloud? . . 2+2 keeps coming up 5!

        • bmaz says:

          Where did you get that?? Two different news orgs have had forensic engineers analyze the clip and neither have given any positive indication of editing.

  13. Tracy says:

    On my phone, so can’t see if some comments have addressed this (btw, reporting and comments on Maggie amazing, btw), but re: Cohen, a guest on Lawrence O’Donnell’s show last night suggested that this info was leaked by a third party, bc hard to see how it benefits Cohen or Trump to have done so. Others on the program also echoed the idea that in fact, prosecutors are hurt here, bc now that incriminating scene is out in public, and witnesses can agree to a story (as apparently happened w TT meeting when it came out). Surely Trump has gotten everyone who overheard that he said “ok” to the TT meeting to agree to cover it up? Rudy even said on air that no one would be able to corroborate cohen’s claim. I just wonder if this leak undermines what is surely a  significant moment for prosecutors to corroborate? Will they be able to back it up other ways? This is a bombshell for most of the public, but for those of us following the conspiracy side of things, don’t we wonder if this is more harmful than helpful to prosecutors trying to make an ironclad case? Thoughts?…

      • Tracy says:

        Thank you, Greenhouse, I will have to check it out later – I can’t see that one on my phone :-/. I did see articles Marcy re-upped re: other evidence (a relief to be reminded, rather concretely, of what other facts M possesses!), and Jed Shugarman’s piece in Slate today  I thought was good re: confraudus. Also, Greg Sargent in WaPo did an opinion piece that also helped put the Cohen info into larger picture  and whole perspective, I thought. I just needed some talking-down-from-the-ledge that this was a really bad development for prosecutors. Fact is Cohen needs corroboration for anything he says anyway. Thanks!!

        • SpaceLifeForm says:

          If you have not checked the article or website recently, force reload so you do not see stale webpage.

  14. greengiant says:

    Thursday’s big reveal by team Trump that Cohen was present in meetings prior to Trump Tower meeting was actually scooped if I recall correctly the same day team Trump dumped the Cohen Stormy Daniels Trump tape In any case Maggie is putting out this distractor a few hours before the next big reveal choreographed by Trump. What a piece of work.

  15. Palli says:

    OK, now I am just embarrassed. Duplicated entries occur because I don’t receive the message to review/edit the comment. I got the duplicate message once but didn’t know how to respond so I < backtracted and got no message so …Gotta stop doing this

    • SpaceLifeForm says:

      What Browser are you using? On what phone or computer?

      There are issues that many of us have encountered.

      And not consistently.

      Do *NOT* use the Samsung stock browser for example.

      Use Firefox or Chrome, you will have less issues.

      To reply to a specific comment, right-click/long press and open in new tab. Your reply will then properly thread.

    • SpaceLifeForm says:

      If you get the duplicate message, it probably made it.

      (why you are seeing that is technical, and I am not going to address here)

      To verify your post really happened, start a completely fresh tab, and load the aritcle. Then force a reload to verify you are not seeing stale data.

      99% of the time, it will be there.

      • bmaz says:

        Don’t listen to this twit, he does not know jack squat about our operation.

        Talk to us. I will make sure that the people who do actually know about this get the question. I have already forwarded the same.

  16. orionATL says:

    none of this media agonizing over authenticity is necessary. none of it!


    trump relied on putin’s help to win the 2016 presidential election. why can’t media people say this out loud?

    re-read emptywheel’s post on putin forcing trump to go thru the june 9 meeting again in helsinki.

    mephistophles called in his chits early for our fool of a faustus.

Comments are closed.