Decided how much to cooperate? Totally outrageous.
6
There's nothing to whisper about. It's loud and clear and everybody knows that Donald Trump colluded with the Russians, obstructed justice, lied about it, committed treason, and in many instances laundered money. As far as them wearing wires, everyone of them are now wired.
7
Tick tock. We work in a silly part of TV and would never bad mouth a colleague in public. You never know who's listening. These are his lawyers?
4
what a bunch of self-serving hypocrisy!
covering their bets in case trump is not taken down.
unprofessional and unethical, through and through and through.
but, look who their ruler is - of course, trump has people with questionalble ethics around - trump would not feel comfortable with anybody of integrity.
6
Trump defense attorney John Dowd assures us that the Trump's legal team is handling the Russia investigation "in a professional manner." By chatting about such sensitive matters publicly at lunch, dining al fresco where anyone can hear, and risk waiving the attorney-client privilege?
Perhaps they were just following their boss's example who earlier this year regaled the dining patrons at Mar a Largo with table talk about national security developments with his Japanese leader guest.
7
I bet you one of the two lawyers, probably the 66-year-old Cobb, has partial hearing loss. People like that tend to shout when they think their voice is within the normal range. That's probably why the New York Times reporter could hear that much of their discussion. Maybe the White House doctor is to blame for this recent faux pas.
6
Who needs SNL? :-D
"The friction escalated in recent days after Mr. Cobb was overheard by a reporter for The New York Times discussing the dispute during a lunchtime conversation at a popular Washington steakhouse. "
2
First there were the Keystone Kops, and now we have the Keystone Lawyers.
1
Talking is what lawyers do. But not in a public restaurant, loudly, unless they are complete idiots. I would have kicked them off the advocacy teams I once took to a state legislative session every year. Rule 1 to those teams. Never lie. Rule 2, Do not talk about anything other than the weather in the elevator, the hallway, the cafe, while seating in the politician's office waiting, nor any other place in the LOB. These two bozos just may get their client in even more trouble than his tweets and lies. Just wondering -- do they tweet?
1
Ethics rule number 1: Do not discuss your client's legal matter in an area where you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. If Mr. Cobb and Mr. Down can't manage this basic requirement, how are they going to shepherd Trump though an exhaustive investigation led by an aggressive special counsel? Donnie sure knows how to pick them.
4
You can bet if Mr. Cobb and McGahn were overheard, it was because they wanted to be overheard. What better way to undercut guaranty of due process, or prejudice any future jury, than to have compromised atty work-product and other privileged-protected information and legal strategy. I fear the NYTimes coverage has been played.
7
These guys talking about this stuff like they were talking about a ball game! and these are supposed to be the legal experts at $1,000 an hour.
3
How about telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
4
Haven't you heard the news that facts don't matter anymore?
1
It's amazing that people can talk about such sensitive matters in a restaurant, and I'm presuming in clear tones too, as they were heard by the reporter sitting at the next table. Please, next time just have a sandwich in your office!
6
They are going to bury them in paper.
1
I would tend to interpret "they" as referring to Mueller and his staff, and "them" referring to the White House. But you possibly intended it the other way around. I am picky about our shared language, probably because I read too many columns by William Safire after the NYT redeemed his reputation. He needed redeeming, after all, considering that he had been a speech writer for Richard Nixon. Patrick Buchanan, on the other hand, is unredeemable.
"The uncertainty has grown to the point that White House officials privately express fear that colleagues may be wearing a wire to surreptitiously record conversations for Mr. Mueller."
Wow! Things must be getting bad if they're into black helicopter territory.
6
It's every lawyer's dream! To be a lawyer for Trump and to be paid for fighting with other lawyers for Trump.
1
The word is not caldron, but cauldron, for Heaven's sakes.
4
You say cauldron,
Woodward and Bernstein say Caldron
(a less common spelling of cauldron (fhs)).
Either will due for this $1000 an hour stew.
Let's call the whole thing off.
1
Strictly speaking, it should be "for heaven's sake" not "for heaven's sakes". See how it is? When you dip your toe into the pond of pedantry, there's always the danger that it'll get bitten.
4
And truth bubbles up from a Deep Cauldron? Not to be confused with the opening scene of "Macbeth" -- that's "double," not "bubble."
1
This is a setup - they want the "secret information" in the safe to be subpoenaed so they can show documents that show Trump in a positive light. This is a scheme - don't fall for it!
7
This little "set-up" is so transparent, it's laughable!
8
Why is it that every time Trump or one of his hangers-on falls flat on his or her face in the mud, people ascribe some Machiavellian superpower to them and claim that the gaffe is part of a genius scheme?
C'mon people, get real. They're just that stupid. And that is good news.
22
And to think that I thought the lawyers Big Guys can afford are better than the lawyers little guys can afford.
2
If Trump lawyers truly believed their client was innocent, they would be eager to turn over everything and I mean everything in order to end this investigation ad to exonerate DT.
The fact they don't do this means they are hiding evidence.
You just have to ask yourself if it is in the remotest realm of possibility that DT could have so very many people in his campaign that had ties to Russia and multiple meetings with Russians and then tried to hide the fact of these meetings - is it possible that all these people with Russian ties, Russian meetings- all in one organization- and that DT knew nothing about these ties and meetings- with his own son in law among the many with Russian ties?
You might have one person- but several people all in one organization? That is beyond the wildest possible coincidence. No other candidate surrounded himself with Russian toadies.
DT's own son freely admitted DT borrowed money from Russian banks when no American bank would touch him after so many bankruptcies.
You have to ask yourself- why would Russian banks be happy to loan money to him - a bad financial risk- if they didn't expect to get something big in return? Even before he was running for POTUS, DT was being groomed by Putin for a future return. Putin sure got a lot of return on his investment.
Putin wants to destabilize western democracies- and he is reaping benefits every day. Each day DT is in office, the US gets lower and lower in a downward spiral. I am sure Putin is loving it.
18
Maybe they were doing performance art, pretending to talk about these things because they knew someone was listening. Like Jerry and George's "not that there's anything wrong with that" conversation when they knew someone was eavesdropping on them.
2
I recommend going back to the old days of speaking about the Times, rather than the recent practice of capitalizing 'the' when speaking about The Times.
1
It is not merely a matter of style. "The New York Times" is a registered trademark, along with separate trademarks for at least one typeface (I think more than one) when used in association with that phrase.
I wonder if J. Fife Symington III's experience with Mr. Dowd might not prove predictive? After all, Mr. Dowd's legal assistance ended "in June 1996, Symington was indicted on 21 federal counts of extortion, making false financial statements, and bank fraud. He was convicted for seven counts of bank fraud on September 4, 1997. He was charged with defrauding his lenders as a commercial real estate developer, extorting a pension fund and perjuring himself in a bankruptcy hearing. As Arizona state law does not allow convicted felons to hold office, Symington resigned his office the next day."
5
Cobb should be gone now. Loose lips sink ships. He's more interested in his image than confidentiality? What a fool. Nice catch for the NYT "reporter", but must question the 'Fake News' topic here.
3
Why "reporter" in quotation marks? Do you have any reason to believe that the person in question was not actually a reporter? And what precisely is the "Fake News topic" to which you allude? Also, why do you have Fake News with an upper case F and N?
1
In addition to comments on this issue previously...if Mueller's special prosecutorial efforts do succeed, people may conclude those indicted could be pardoned by Trump.
No so, if those efforts were effectuated in various states..those states could bring action against those who may of been pardoned by Trump..meaning, there is no "get out of jail card" available to perhaps Manaford and the others already involved in the investigation.
Virtually any state could bring action because Facebook (as an example) is utilized on all states..so jurisdiction for prosecution could be from California to New York.
3
Donald J Chaos will fight the Mueller investigation with everything he can. he has no moral compass, no scruples, no single bone of discernment in his body. He claims he is a fighter and he sometimes shows us. He has such a big ego that I think he will fight until and through impeachment no matter what Mueller and his team finds. He has consistently lied about "No Russian Ties" during the campaign and afterward. It is going to be a sorry circus with Trump as the Ringmaster in a darkened tent with only a single spotlight on him. Fade to black...
7
Actually those "RUSSIAN Ties" Bill Clinton and HILLARY CLINTON have. Trump didn't mean he doesn't have business ties, he meant he has no ties to the Russians who hacked Podesta's emails.
There has been no evidence proving Trump COLLUDED WITH RUSSIA to hack Podesta's emails. None.
It's a Liberal fantasy that's going to disappoint you in the long run.
An attorney cannot adequately represent a client if relevant facts and evidence are being withheld from the attorney. From the overheard comments, it appears that Mr. Cobb believes that Mr. McGahn is interfering with Mr. Cobb's access to evidence. Mr. Cobb should demand from Mr. Trump that that Mr. Cobb have direct, unfiltered access to all facts and evidence. If Mr. Trump refuses, then Mr. Cobb should withdraw from representing Mr. Trump.
7
In Washington, if you are going to speak even in a whisper, about sensitive matters in a popular public place, you deserve everything bad that happens to you.
10
Seriously! Did Cobb miss the 9,473,000 references to confidentiality and discretion in his time at Harvard Law??
6
Trump can sure pick 'em. But wait....I just figured it out....Trump picks layers, cabinet members, staff, etc. who are mostly just like him. Why would he pick any one with ethics? He has none. Why would he pick anyone with scruples? He has none. Why would he pick anyone with integrity? Integrity is an anthem to him. Way to go lawyers.....loose lips....just like the Donald.
7
List of things Trump has done to show he is colluding with Russia - 1. Made fun of Mitt Romney for saying Russia is a threat - Oh wait that was Obama 2. Told Russian President he would have more flexibility to reduce our nuclear stockpile after the election - Oh wait that was Obama 3. Signed off on giving 20% of our uranium to Russia - Oh wait that was Hillary 4. Gave a $500,000 speech to a Russian bank - Oh wait that was Bill Clinton 5. Took missile defense system out of Poland because Putin objected to it - Oh wait that was Obama 6. Knew about hacking but did nothing - Oh wait that was Obama 7. Asked Russia to hack Hillary's e-mails - Oh wait he was answering a question by a reporter who asked him if he thought Russia had hacked her e-mails.
Why would anyone expect any different than blame the Dems from Georgia.
7
If you ignore all the things Trump’s team has done to provide evidence of collusion with the Russians then, yes, you get your cherry-picked snarky list. Try reality. It’s refreshing.
9
Keeping a secret only delays when the truth comes out. They never seem to learn.
7
My question is, after everything is said and done, will their be an impeachment if Trump is found guilty or will the GOP just say it's a nothing-burger and do nothing?
4
It was two (2) months ago when in one of these commentary article, I mentioned how Facebook has the details of every account to include the IP address and distributed content. This now means Mueller et al can quantify the number and message content as to the election interference by the Russians.
The strategic question is whether or not Manaford et al assisted in providing the strategy..or even the causal recommendation to use Facebook and other social media sites into "fake news" to assist Trump in the election.
If this is the case, even the mention of such a recommendation is an indictable offense...a felony, plus those who were there could easily be construed to part of the "conspiracy" to defraud the American people of a free and fair election.
That said, did Trump know any of these details..was he informed..did he have knowledge of the Russian objective to assist him. My "guess" that many did!
if a comment or two, please do!
2
This reminds me of an old adage: when the going gets confused, the confused get going. Who needs the Ringling Brothers Circus when we have the Trump White House crowd.
7
Sometime this week, hopefully today, Mr Mueller's office will contact the Office of White House Counsel in writing and request a listing of documents potentially relevant to the inquiry that are in the White House safe. At a minimum, Mr Mueller should be able to obtain a listing of the documents (i.e, privilege log) to enable him to ascertain whether the documents are (a) potentially relevant and (b) should be the subject a more formal request. At a minimum, the WH will thus be put on notice to preserve the documents.
5
They should preserve the documents like Hillary Clinton preserved those 30,000 emails too, huh?
Keep telling yourself that, Vilinia.
3
the question is whether Ty can still play hardball and get away with stealing home
3
Mueller is pushing us into an Orwellian world.
1
Trump already has us there.
4
If that's true it's certainly better than the Putin world
Great reporting by our FREE press! An informed public makes educated decisions and we do not need the WH to filter the information for us.
16
The only thing I hope is that Mr. Mueller would give us the best news of the XXI century.
7
I suppose his legal team can obstruct justice, then he can pardon them as well.
4
Mueller is clearly a Hillary advocate judging by the refuse he's hired
1
Examples?
6
Has anyone hypothesized that this is a deliberate smear of McGahn by a Cobb in order to redirect the Mueller spotlight onto McGahn (or the hidden documents); or perhaps a opportunity to weaken McGahn's status in the White House? Doesn't it seem odd that they were being so careless in conversation next to Ken Vogel?
8
Pretty much everyone has "hypothesized" that.
4
The only ones interfering with the investigation have been the press.
1
The only way we discovered anything was the Press. Why, it's almost as though the Press were a vital part of Democracy! Someone should write an amendment about that.
33
Seems like a real rookie mistake for such high power lawyers. Wonder if it was deliberate?
17
"“Assertions of privilege are the exception to the rule that the law is entitled to every man’s evidence, and in this instance it is critical in our judgment that the president be fully transparent with the special counsel in this inquiry,” Mr. Dowd said." Really? So, about those "Mr. McGahn documents locked in that persons safe?"
And this: "While Mr. Cobb advocated turning over documents to Mr. Mueller, he seemed sensitive to the argument that they should not necessarily be provided to congressional committees investigating the Russia matter. “If we give it to Mueller, there is no reason for it to ever get to the Hill,” he said." Why shouldn't the Hill get everything Mueller gets? We at least deserve an explanation of that position.
7
All of a sudden Trump is protecting the office of the presidency? Ha! Once he asserts "executive privilege," more and more of the public will take it as an admission of guilt. Of course Fox News will keep Trump's people pumped up and full of rage as a counter-balance in the body politic.
9
If Trump were innocent, there would be no need for his legal team to discuss whether or not to cooperate. They would just cooperate and let the truth come out.
The fact that they are debating whether to cooperate with a federal investigation suggests that at least some of Trump's legal team believe or know he is guilty. That's pretty troubling
20
First we had Trump discussing foreign policy with the Chinese president in the public dining room at Mar-a-Lago and now we have Trump's lawyers yelling at each other in a public restaurant. The Trump administration has become an international laughingstock.
20
This is so bush league that it's unbelievable. Every professional service provider knows better than to discuss clients in situations where the conversation can be overheard. Further, no discussion can name the client when others are present. For a senior lawyer to behave this way beggars belief. I would fire Cobb immediately were he working for me.
16
The damage done to the Office of the Presidency by the Deep State, including Comey and Mueller, is probably already irreversible no matter who or which party inhabits it next.
2
Deep state, schmeep state. Everything that Mueller is doing was done first by Ken Starr. Now take your medicine like everyone else.
4
Deep State. Is that like Jade Helm, the pizzeria sex ring, the ghost of Dale Earnhardt and other Trumpbot fantasies?
1
Heres a simple fix for the Whitehouse hidden spy wire problem. Just bring in a dozen or so T.S.A airport pervert pat down people with their rubber gloves to shake down everyone entering the Whitehouse. If we have to put up with that taking a plane trip why shouldn't they have too?
5
Personally, I think the Whitehouse leaks are from personnel who fell in love with Michelle Obama during her 8 years of living there. I can picture someone in housekeeping calling Mrs. Obama and telling them who was or was not coming out of an office or what broken vase had to be cleaned up after an argument, etc.
2
Why does the New York Times call it the "Monica S. Lewinsky scandal"? Maybe it should be called the "Bill Clinton lascivious behavior with a White House intern scandal." Or is it just easier to blame a woman by attaching her name to it? Btw, I voted twice for Bill Clinton because his governing policies were better than his opponents, but his personal behavior in this case was abominable. Let's remember that it was his scandal, not hers.
23
I completely understand your complaint - Monica Lewinsky has been through a lot over this. But I suspect they used her name because the "Bill Clinton scandal" or even the "Bill Clinton sex scandal" could refer to too many other events.
7
I'd say it was her scandal as well.
3
Sounds like the Wisconsin "John Doe" witch hunt!
The whole Russia CNN thing is a hoax and CNN has already admitted it is. Here is the real Russian connection. Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton were principals in the FBI investigation of the Clinton Foundation for racketeering with foreign governments for pay-to-play quid-pro-quo and money laundering with unauthorized secret server for email correspondence. A well documented example of this is after the Secretary of State Clinton signed the waiver for a group of Russians to buy 20% of a US company that mines and processes US Uranium, when these nine people associated with this waiver transferred $145 million dollars from a Russian bank to the Clinton Foundation - and Bill Clinton received $500,000 cash for 15 minute speaking engagement held later who knows where in Moscow. There is your real Russian connection. No trace of the $145 million still. That is your only Russian collusion.
4
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
9
Not the best-written article. Sometimes it gets muddled which lawyer is mad at what lawyer and which two lawyers were at lunch.
P.S. story read likes written by different people then merged it to one. Oh, that's right it was.
6
Foppery aside, Cobb seems a lightweight. Good Lord, this guy's got a mouth on him that should be zipped up tighter than a clam at low tide. Instead he goes to a fashionable joint loaded with Times people and spills his guts? Wow! Just...Wow!
Cobb would be better off setting up living trusts.
12
This entire episode, specie of the NYT rifling through back lane garbage dumps like a vagrant, seems to be clear on one thing: nobody at the White House or legal team thinks the President is guilty of anything.
And, anticipating the next facile question, so why don't they turn over everything like boy scouts? If you've ever been part of any investigation, you know one thing: you never turn over everything, not to the other side, not to your friends, not to your wife/husband, not to your mother - including if it were a discussion of the Ten Commandments. As attributed to Cardinal Richelieu: "Give me six lines written by the most honest man in the world, and I will find enough in them to hang him."
The existence of a special counsel in practical terms not accountable to anyone is an egregious upending of the Constitutional structure.
2
Maybe they should all just, you know, cooperate?
5
Why do I never hear about Trump's sister, the one who's a judge?
3
Umm, maybe for the same reason we never read about you, i.e., because she has nothing to do with this and stays out of the news
1
Roy Cohn got her her job. Trump and his sister both admitted it.
1
Too many crooks spoil the broth.
6
No wonder poor people go to jail!
5
The Clown Show goes on.........who said Barnum and Bailey's circus closed it's doors?
4
Are there truly enough "I'm with stupid --->" T-shirts in existence to outfit all of the clowns, charlatans, poseurs and ignorati in the tRump White House entourage? I don't think so.
Talk about the Not Ready for Prime Time Players.
8
Couldn't the reporter have "overheard" the conversation while sitting at the same table? I suspect that the leak was deliberate and the "overheard" part is a cover. But, this president has proven again and again that truth can be stranger than fiction.
5
I used to wait tables and you hear lots. I heard even more back in the days when I was a busboy. And the tables are so close to get more customers in that you can hear lots of conversations in just about any restaurant. I am surprised these guys did not get a private room but even then, they usually have staff standing around.
2
Trump's M.O. trickles down to his associates and inner circle.
Violation of Atty/Client confidentiality?! How ironic,considering the disregard of the law,lack of diplomacy,distrust rampart with this crowd occupying and associated with the WH.
They are victims of their own doing,so do NOT 'feel' for them.
Birds of a feather!
3
That McGahn would profess to worry about a precedent being set that would weaken the White House after Trump's tenure (hopefully abbreviated by Mr. Mueller) is truly laughable. He can console himself with the knowledge that Donald has done everything imaginable to demean the presidency and to make the country an international laughingstock. He should turn over the documents in that safe post haste and as a witness, tell the truth.
People are going to have to decide whether to go down with the ship of fools, captained by Donald or to cut their losses and save their skins.
106
Another day on the tightest ship in town. At least it appears that the story is not unsourced leaks, but is reliant on the more time honored techniques of restaurant eavesdropping. Who says the pre-tech days were dull?
6
Reads like a John Grisham novel especially the self important projections by the lawyers. Whole thing is fiction.
3
"after Mr. Cobb was overheard by a reporter for The New York Times discussing the dispute during a lunchtime conversation at a popular Washington steakhouse. Mr. Cobb was heard talking about a White House lawyer he deemed “a McGahn spy” and saying Mr. McGahn had “a couple documents locked in a safe” that he seemed to suggest he wanted access to. He also mentioned a colleague whom he blamed for “some of these earlier leaks,” and who he said “tried to push Jared out,” meaning Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and senior adviser, who has been a previous source of dispute for the legal team.
Hard for me to believe that a media outlet is large and wide-read as the NYTimes has journalists that can spy on someone in a restaurant AND that the editorial staff sees fit to publish a private conversation. Don't tell me the lawyer was giving a presentation OR that the reporter believed this was anything other than a private conversation.
1
Words overheard in a public space (which is what a restaurant is) cannot be considered a private conversation.
9
If they wanted a private conversation, perhaps they should have had it somewhere private.
7
It was in a restaurant, which is not considered a "private" space. If you don't want to be overheard, don't go outside the office.
8
Flood them with information, all it will do is further indict the left.
2
makes you wonder why they don't, doesn't it?
4
This "which" hunt is so far beyond anything truthful. I am paid to detect public relations ploys. Starting with this creepy Mueller character on down. This whole affair is a sham.
1
The finger pointing will begin in earnest with everyone's lawyers set up for a circular firing squad. This will become entertaining, bring lots of popcorn.
4
"weaken the White House long after Mr. Trump’s tenure is over"
Maybe not a bad idea, especially if there is another Trumpish figure in the future, considering how Trump has managed to bend, twist, turn, blacken and betray protocol, American values, ethics, the dignity of office and any laws and be more secretive – to the benefit of his and his family's con.
The WH is not recognizable anymore it's more akin to the lawless, petty, corrupt, limited thinking and abusive power of autocracy, oligarchy, theocracy and dictatorship given voice and power by the 45th. Maybe it has always that way, kept in check and reined in only by aspiration, which is now no longer a player. With the current occupant of the WH it's just down and dirty does it and so far he's been able to get away with it.
5
It stretches the imagination that these two lawyers would have chosen a restaurant near the NY Times if they weren't planting a story. They're not amateurs. Although, the President is, so maybe his lawyers are too.
3
It's in the article - the restaurant was in Washington.
3
Trump can't get decent lawyers to represent him, so he is stuck with a couple of sycophantic clowns who are obviously happy to take his money. They seem to be outrageously incompetent. This can not end well for Trump, but maybe he doesn't care as long as people are bowing and scraping to his majesty.
Trump has the blind confidence of his experience in real estate when he could just shout at his legal goons: "Make this go away!" and they would file bankruptcy or counter-sue plaintiffs or try to outspend his opponents. That won't work here.
7
Shakespeare was absolutely correct in his declaration about lawyers.
1
Could the lawyers possibly have been staging a rehearsed performance for the reporter? I can't think of any way Team Trump could have benefitted from such a tactic, but who knows.
4
Of course there should be no cooperation. Mueller has packed his team of lawyers with Democrat supporters and lawyers who have an ax to grind with President Trump. There is overwhelming bias against the President and giving them any assistance in their witch hunt is simply suicide - even though there is no collusion with the Russians.
2
Why do we keep referring to scandals that involve a sitting US president by names that do not reference that president? Why is it the "Monica Lewinsky Scandal" instead of the "Bill Clinton Sex Scandal?" Why is the "Watergate Scandal" in stead of a moniker that invokes Nixon's involvement such as "The Nixon Watergate Break-in"?
If a US President is intimately involved in some scandal while in office, why try to take the world's eye off the birdie by referring to the scandal by not invoking the President's name? I do not see this as protecting the Office of the Presidency: I see it as failure to hold the President to the high standard that our nation and the rest of the world deserves.
We are now involved in an evolving scandal centering on foreign power interfering with the election of a US President with perhaps the endorsement of the president. Why call the scandal the something akin to Russian Interference with US Presidential Election Scandal when emerging evidence increasingly implicates Trump himself.
When all is said and done and if there is clear and convincing evidence that Trump aided and abetted tainting our election, I see it as fitting that Trump's name be associated with the scandal.
4
There's no doubt John Kelly's tone was filled with exasperation when he "sharply reprimanded" Cobb. If Kelly's role is to tamp down White House chaos and prevent the threat of nuclear war, one wonders if incidents like this one, increasing daily and exponentially, will ultimately be too much for the general to tolerate.
7
I've come to understand why Ty Cobb was the most disliked of the baseball all star players. 'Nuff said.
3
Trump "Support-Leaders"!
Where are you when we need you? Outside of your love-fest rallies, do you show enthusiasm and dedication to ensure that your leaders spend enough time for your uplift?
1
... from the article ... "Not only do Mr. Trump, Mr. Kushner and Mr. McGahn all have lawyers, but so do other senior officials. The uncertainty has grown to the point that White House officials privately express fear that colleagues may be wearing a wire to surreptitiously record conversations for Mr. Mueller." ... how can anyone in the White House communicate with anyone else and do their jobs if trust is this low?
4
If you are working in the White House, and you are so afraid of your conversations being heard by Mueller - then you are doing something illegal, and you shouldn't be there. I'm glad they are afraid - I would prefer their integrity would keep them from doing and saying things that could be a subject of investigation - but if it's rumor and fear that might help control their behavior, I'll settle for that.
1
Just exactly who is paying for all these high-priced lawyers that Trump and family are hiring? Is it the taxpayers?
14
I think it might be, Trump is living high on the hog courtesy of American citizens, just like any autocrat. Take a look at his security bill and all the dollars wasted on his expensive research projects trying to prove he got the popular vote. He even employs his family and friends at the State's expense.
6
We taxpayers, bigly, believe me!
8
It is laughable that a few in President Trump’s inner circle are trying to withhold some of the documents demanded by special counsel Robert Mueller III, claiming presidential prerogative. Don’t they know that the main goal of the Mueller investigation is to establish whether there was any collusion between Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign and Russia? That most of the documents pertain to a period when Mr. Trump was not president?
Even if they pertain to the period since he became president, there is no legal basis for withholding them. None, including the president, is above law. As it is, obstruction of justice is an additional charge against Mr. Trump that Mr. Mueller is investigating. The charge stemmed from his firing of the then-FBI director Comey, who was probing the alleged connections between the Trump campaign and Russia. Withholding the documents relevant to the probe will be another instance of obstruction of justice.
Mr. Trump should know that the truth will out one day. If he has nothing to hide, he should be “fully transparent with the special counsel,” as his personal lawyer John Dowd has suggested, and help conclude the investigation fast. Or if he is aware that there are skeletons in the closet, shouldn't wait until the special counsel brings them out. If there are, he certainly will.
Mr, Trump, please save the country the indignity that the late Richard Nixon put it through. To state bluntly, don’t wait until impeachment becomes imminent.
91
What balderdash. Mueller 's job is to get Trump out in any way possible.
2
"To state bluntly, don’t wait until impeachment becomes imminent."...
Please be gentle with him because, "I am very rich. I am very popular".
1
Congress is complicit in keeping Trump "above the law"
3
Rub a dub dub three men in a tub, each has their own agenda. The hubris must be palpable . What a crew. We'll leak info, the country will believe us we are earning our money this week. They must have taken lessons from Russian lawyer, you think ?
6
I notice Ty Cobb has been striking out a lot lately. It could be he's not up to all the fastballs Mueller has been tossing at him.
22
Comrade Mueller's witch-hunt rolls on, despite zero evidence, adding more votes for Trump in 2020 every day.
4
Perhaps WilliamPenn2 can enlighten the rest of us since his claim of "zero evidence" must mean that he has had the opportunity to review every document and all interview transcripts that has been gathered by Mr. Mueller and his staff. I would also point out what seems to be the obvious truth...if there is "zero evidence" and this is simply a "witch hunt", then why are all of these lawyers needed by the White House and why is that they are so obviously desperately anxious about the the so-called "zero evidence"?
8
How do you know there is zero evidence? Nothing has been made public.
Also aren't you the tiniest bit curious as to whether there is Russian involvement. Decades ago citizens would have been up in arms that a foreign government may be in cahoots with a sitting President and playing fast and loose with the electorate and the future of the country.
I'm curious as to why it doesn't matter to Trump supporters that he or those close to him may be selling the country down the river. For all you know it may turn out his administration, even his family undermined him - don't you want to know the truth.
8
Jail for the whole gang, a la Watergate! Will be great to see Sessions walking into a Federal penitentiary, a la John Mitchell, as well as the likes of Flynn and Bannon, not to mention Trump, Kushner, etc...
27
Give me a break. This guy was hired by the prez to look out the prez's interest. He was not hired to protect the office of the president now or in the future. When he acts like that's his MO it's simply unbelievable. Tell the truth, all of it all the time. That's what should be simple.
71
Speculation about whether Robert Mueller picked off Trump staffers to wear a wire on day one of the investigation? Really, speculation? The mass of disaffected administration leakers has finally found the fat pipes through which the information can constantly flow out of the Trump Whitehouse without risk to the persons who formerly had to carry buckets full of info out the front door! Ha!
3
These types of indiscretions simply do not occur over lunch. Even novice lawyers from third-tier law schools would be adept at avoiding "overheard conversation."
The NYT should realize when it has been punked. But then again, why break it to them? The NYT still hasn't figured out how it got punked starting in 2015.
3
Yes, they do. DC is a long way from California. There are some restaurants in DC that lawyers like to frequent, because they are often out of range pricewise from the hoi poi, and they think they are "safe" from being overheard. Not the first time this has happened, if I remember correctly.
6
Second headline in today's NYT:
"Trump Aides, Seeking Leverage, Investigate Mueller’s Investigators"
Reminiscent, for those of you old enough to remember, of Joe McCarthy's attempt to smear one of Joe Welch's aides in the "Army - McCarthy" hearings back in the fifties. It blew up in his face and and that was end of Mac the Knife.
Will Trump and his "aides" repeat that blunder? On Utube?
7
Here's hoping they do! I am old enough to remember those hearings.
4
ANYone who doesn't see the proof of collusion is either a fool or a liar.
Melania getting $1 million from Russian Businessmen for 2 speeches
The Trump Foundation getting $100 million from same businessmen
All this going on as Donald approves the transfer of 25% of American Uranium production to those self same Russian businessmen.
Oh...that wasn't Trump?
nevermind.
13
Thank you! And what is "collusion" anyway? What law prohibits "collusion?" I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted for the crime of collusion because there is no crime of collusion.
1
"Mr. McGahn supports cooperation, but has expressed worry about setting a precedent that would weaken the White House long after Mr. Trump’s tenure is over." -- Does anybody REALLY think Trump actually does NOT want the White House to be weakened AFTER he's finally given the boot?
11
That is the bidding Trump is doing for Putin.
6
No-one did anything wrong despite the mounting evidence that comes to light each daybreak and despite the fact that everyone in the WH has lawyers, and some of these lawyers have lawyers as well. They will need a ballroom when they hold annual reunions afterward. I am sure they will be held off Trump properties, if any can be found.
5
No American lawyer with a solvent paying client ever "loses" a case.
While seemingly every interested party to this Russian inquiry matter is a client of some lawyer or another the ultimate question is which lawyer or lawyers is representing the American people's interest in preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution of their United States and their White House.
72
Finally, the real question.
Thanks, Blackmamba!
2
Robert Meller and staff are representing us. The best!
3
From "Minority Report":
Danny Witwer: I worked homicide before I went federal. This is what we call an orgy of evidence. You know how many orgies I had as a homicide cop?
Officer Fletcher: How many?
Danny Witwer: None. This was all arranged.
3
I have been wondering about this, too ... that perhaps this conversation was meant to be overheard ... seems a little too easy for reporter to get the story. Could these lawyers really be this dumb? Maybe. I'm not getting into much of a lather over it, though. I look at everything that comes out of this White House with a jaundiced eye. Perhaps this "overheard" conversation was a way to divert attention from R attempt (again?) to repeal Obamacare and screw millions of Americans so that rich fat cats can get a tax break ...
3
Not really. This is a very expensive restaurant that probably no one would expect a reporter to afford. There are several in the vicinity of the WH. A good reporter would have a good expense account, and it might help if there was tip off on who was lunching there on any given day.
3
Jesus, just get those grifters out of our White House. Now!
18
Non-cooperation with official investigations is an attempt to obfuscate, deliberate confusing in order to conceal the truth.
4
The absolute best way "to handle the demands of investigators without surrendering the institutional prerogatives of the office of the presidency" would be for the president not to commit any crimes, so investigation would be completely unnecessary. An innocent person doesn't have anything to hide. Mr. Trump, apparently, does.
11
What does Trump have to hide? Same goes with his taxes. Conservatives use that line all the time, "What's he got to hide?"
7
"Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead."
~~ Benjamin Franklin
There are far too many cooks in this soup to keep the lid on the pot.
206
Helluva a mixed metaphor -- they are truly in the soup evn as they are making it.
1
IF you have nothing to hide, you hide nothing! Thank God for Mueller!
Republicans, you are colluding with #45!
10
russia inquiry?,,, russia witch hunt.
2
Russia inquiry.
6
Let me get this straight. Two high-priced lawyers with two high-priced separate offices, decide to eat together in a high-priced restaurant and talk loudly enough about a high-profile case that a conveniently-located reporter for a highly-respected newspaper can overhear sensitive details and get a scoop?
And the Times runs the story as if it were real. I am not going to read another Times story about "fake news".
7
Yep
2
How is it fake? Have these two lawyers disputed this article?
9
It's like "The Sopranos," but everyone is Ralphie.
5
The most interesting words to me were of the June meeting to which Cobb stated "there was no perception that there was an exchange". Obviously speaking of the meeting documents. So is he clearly stating there was an exchange? Also the use of the first "was" as in past tense rather than the word "is".
2
Someone might investigate whether anyone from Cobb's office leaked the lunch reservation to the NYTimes. Talk loudly at a table in a public restaurant? A perfect way to disseminate information without being held responsible for 'leaking."
15
I think a waiter did it.
2
I used to wait tables. You even get credit card info on people.
3
It is a source of wonderment that the electorate are faulted for electing Trump. HC, and I voted for her, ran an inept campaign. I am furious with the Democrats for being so incompetent that HC lost to a man with orange hair. Even now , in her book, "What Happened" HC blames everyone else( she gives her self a little blame but she is insincere). If we make it to the next election, just maybe both parties will run competent people. But, Bernie seems to be running again. And, now we hear from Biden? Where were you last time?? You would have been elected! And, we do not need the fire brand senator form Mass or the new one from CA. We need a person you can actually unite, who is not devoted to identity politics and pandering to one group or another, and who is not beholden to Wall Street or Labor or populism. Can such a person even be found?
8
Michelle Obama 2020. And she wasn't born in Kenya, no matter what the birthers might claim.
2
Oprah 20/20 Vision
A new car and a trip to Australia for everyone. She would make it happen.
1
Is a smoking gun document being secreted in McGahn's safe? Can Mueller subpoena the contents of the safe?
4
This White House is full of passionate people. Passionate people will do almost anything to keep on the right side the object of their passion. Lawyers, good ones at least, should be dispassionate. Mr. Cobb seems like the former, Mr. McGahn the latter. At least up to the point where this story first broke, anyways. The White House counsel appears to be the only member of the current administration who realizes someone else has to take over the office eventually.
2
I guess one way to widely publicize your position on a controversial issue is to speak loudly in a popular DC restaurant. Your reporter didn't "overhear" Mr. Cobb's remarks. They were intended for him/her in the first place. The NYT was played on this one.
9
Wow, someone in Trump's administration who is worried about implications on future presidencies .... That must be the first long term concern expressed by someone in Trump's WH in 8 months.
Apart from sarcasm, two logical questions:
If Trump is indeed innocent, why does McGahn need to protect any pertinent information from being shared with Muller's team whose charge it is to determine Trump's innocence?
If, as Trump claims, he is truly innocent, why is he fighting the issue tooth and nail? What is preventing him from putting an end to investigation by being truthful?
8
As a casual reader, this "accidental conversation overheard at lunch" was indeed orchestrated by Cobb. These two men are experienced criminal defense lawyers that are highly regarded in their professions.
These lawyers are concerned that WH officials (incl WH counsel) may be obstructing justice by not producing all documents. There is no exec privilege or atty client priv btw WH officials, the President and WH counsel when there is a criminal inquiry. Its settled law from the Nixon era.
Cobb and Dowd do not want to aid and abet obstruction hence the "noisy lunch." Nixon lawyers went to jail for this sort of conduct.
WH counsel will certainly receive a Grand Jury subpoena with this story out there, saying there are "documents in a safe".
11
There are "documents in a safe" like Obama wiretapped Trump Tower. I suspect that when a lawyer has a weak case, he/she will use any means, including planting a titillating story for the press and (they hope) Mueller to waste resources chasing. Or possibly they are trying to send Mueller off in a direction that they have no intention of going.
2
Once again the NYT pushes their agenda with hearsay and conversations supposedly overheard by one person in a restaurant. This is not news. This is typical lib not having any verifiable facts, but pushing their hatred for the President of the United States of America. The insane Lib and Establishment agenda is the agenda, not reporting facts and even pretending to be unbiased.
When the media becomes an advocate, they are no longer protected by the Constitution as a member of the press. They are still protected for freedom of speech, but they are no different than the KKK, Nazis or any other extremist who puts out propaganda in their pursuit of hate.
5
A great lesson I learned as a child is always take the news with a pinch of salt – it is not meant as spoon-feed, read widely and think critically.
As for 'hating' the President it goes with the territory as far back as George Washington so enough with the 'victim' mentality. Trump is the biggest leaker and media hound there is not a hapless bystander caught in the net of the wicked press.
1
Sounds to me like Cobb wanted a set of messages delivered and the NYT delivered them. This was a tactical leak designed to give the impression that Trump is clean and has nothing to hide while simultaneously justifying all out aggressive claims of executive privilege and attorney client privilege. Cobb is as smart and slick as Trump is slimy.
14
I wonder who is playing "George Smiley" in this novel?
49
This has to be one of the best snipe hunts ever.
4
So these two experienced Washington attorneys manage to put pressure on the White House counsel, a NY attorney who has been Trump's personal attorney for decades all without "violating" Attorney General Jeff Sessions new procedures or protocols against leaks.
Instead of ordering take outs, journalists will now have to dine in at these popular "watering holes". predict a 100% increase in lunch and dinner business at this and other popular Washington restaurants.
7
I spent 25 years working in state and local prosecutors' offices and thought I had seen some pretty dumb things, but this one takes the cake. Since Mr. Cobb used judgement poorer than most apprentices, I recommend that DT tell him "You're fired!"
14
There is no telling at this point if this lunch indiscretion was a mistake or deliberate.
41
I'll consider it a mistake until proven otherwise.
5
Let's see how long it takes for them to start yelling - leak, leak again.
2
Why would an innocent man fear cooperating? The fear is because Trump is guilty of collusion with the Russian Federation.
36
The special counsel and the Russia investigation is a waste of time. Robert Mueller is a republican and a former Bush appointee - his job is to make sure that Trump toes the party line. There will be a thorough investigation of Trump's contacts with the Russians, but it will only be wielded against Trump if he refuses to conform to republican party orthodoxy. That the democrats are stupid enough to go along with this charade demonstrates how inept and pathetic they've become.
Trump said he favors detente with Moscow. He's been saying that for many, many years. It's only naturally that, given how unbelievably permissive our campaign laws are, that they would attempt to see someone who they though would be friendlier to their country's interests elected president. Clinton took a hard-line against Russia and she paid for that. One of her many mistakes.
Bill Clinton took money from the Chinese in the 1990s. Politicians from both parties are routinely paid off by the Saudi and Israeli lobbies. Soliciting support from a foreign country is not all that uncommon in American politics. Perhaps if the democratic administration of Barack Obama had not supported the Ukraine coup or supported the attempt to overthrow Russia's Syrian ally the Russians would not have decided to oppose Clinton so strongly?
2
Are you recommending that the Democratic Party support Russian objectives in eastern Europe and the Middle East?? Then 'maybe' the Russians will not interfere in our political positions? Trump is already taking care of that.
4
While all the focus in the media is on the man in the White House who is deliberately running things in a totally chaotic way, there is another side to all this. Trump may have an ego big enough to allow him to believe he will not be caught at anything illegal because he is so, so smart but he is an amateur at governing and governmental law. For him, covering his tracks probably consists of his favorite tactic which is showing confusion and uncertainty. However, his misdeeds certainly involved Russia and Putin. Whether Trump himself knew everything or nothing is going to be extremely hard to prove. The Russians buying one hundred thousand dollars of ads is no doubt the tip of the iceberg even adding in the back of the Democraic emails. The Russians are not just targeting the U. S. They have targeted the West as a whole The expertise of Putin both in seeing and executing this cyber warfare is truly mind blowing. Let's hope that Trump being the clown he is leads Mueller to a full knowledge of what happened before the next election.
20
Even the lawyers for trump have lawyers. I wonder what they are nervous about. This is going to be, or should I say will continue to be fascinating.
20
When we see the lawyers for the lawyers lawyer up, then we'll know we have gone deeper down the rabbit hole than ever.
6
It occurs to me now that we might still be spending taxpayer money to "investigate" these issues for the next three years, fueled by journalists who dream of "Tricky Dick" Trump sailing away in disgrace in a helicopter from the East Lawn.
Let's just face facts: HILLARY CLINTON LOST. She lost, because she could not possibly have won. Of course people in all countries of the world are interested in the election and would like to see this-or-that person win, but she LOST ... fair and square.
If we are actually concerned with "Russian interference with elections," we should simplify our statement to focus on the actual issue, by removing the word, "Russian." Leaving, "interference with elections." Specifically: "paperless" electronic voting machines, which cannot be audited. In those precincts, the ballot boxes could have been electronically and undetectably "stuffed," and it wouldn't take Russians to do it.
In my (professional) opinion, therefore, the use of paperless voting should be immediately outlawed, in all elections, in all States. The State of Colorado has demonstrated how elementary statistical quality-control techniques can be used to establish the probable validity of election results, given the presence of an all-important corroborating paper trail. These techniques should also be required by law. Our elections must be demonstrably resistant to interference of any and every kind, from any and every possible source. IF we have paper, we can do that.
6
FYI: there IS plenty of evidence that Donald and his campaign had plenty to do with Russia! Wake up!
2
Well, I don't know about the "fair and square" part.
1
The investigation is not just about the act (or counting) of voting, though there are some who would like to move it to only what they advocate - such as restricting voting.
The above comment is shifting the argument: this is a common method used by those who do not want to address larger issues. "My "professional" opinion" is another method used by those making an assertion appear to have more weight than they deserve.
3
O, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive!
Walter Scott
Folks, folks, just settle down. Wait for it!
There are so many portions of this Web, several are bound to trip over it, or maybe all. It will happen. You can fool some of the people, etc. Etc. ETC.
14
On this question if staged - Can Mueller find out if the reporters made a reservation and ask the restaurant staff if they answered calls or opened their reservation book? Anything suspect about table assignments? I think it was just bad form on the lawyer, but I would want to know if I was investigating.
8
The point of it all was to draw attention to these "two documents" in a safe in the WH. It's a ploy.
7
what's wrong with 100% cooperation?
8
That's very simple. It sets a precedent.
That precedent would apply to future Presidents ... even far left ones
that the NYTimes would just love.
4
Lawyers protect their clients. Saying that you are being 100% cooperative is not the same things as being 100% cooperative. Just knowing that Trump was engaged with Putin on building the Moscow Trump Tower while running for President should be enough to realize what is going on.
5
Isn't it just like the Trump gaggle of grifters to help themselves to tax dollars and then decided these coochie coos are just tooooo toooo toooo to have to answer questions put to them by a Special Counsel?
Oh puhlease. Who do these lawyers think they are? Trump knows exactly what he is doing. He is demanding his codpiece lawyers not testify. The more power you give Trump, the more he plans to take.
Right now, he is masterfully dividing the parties by creating enmity between himself and the GOP. When he tricks the Dems into another of his legendary scams, he will have managed to decimate both parties and the country will be at his mercy. Just like tyrant CEOs like Trump demand. Full obedience on our tax dollars.
This moron can't keep his trap shut if his life depends on it. He knows by spilling his guts about UK security, he is further dividing our allies until all the US has left is Russia. And there will be Putin ready and waiting to turn this country into his puppet regime.
13
This is either the most egregious violation of attorney ethical rules I've ever seen, or the Times is being punked. You're representing the most high-profile client in the most high-profile investigation in the country, and you talk about it in public? At a popular Washington steakhouse frequented by reporters? With the level of incompetence exhibited at every level of this administration, it's hard to tell which one it is.
426
Take a look at the WaPo story they have a map and diagrams. The restaurant is just a few steps away from the NYT office in DC.
Hard to know. If I had to make an even money bet at this point, I'd say NYT was punked-- all deliberately done to place this information in the public domain via the NYT.
3
While I take your point, what makes you think that any of them even remotely think that the rules apply to them.
3
F Troop.
9
So you have two lawyers MM. Cobb and Dowd who are working for the WH discussing the legal situation over lunch. M. Cobb is saying that he wants to be as open as possible with M. Mueller since there is absolutely nothing wrong with what M. Trump has done.
That's a nice story. And guess what ? They choosed a restaurant that's a few doors from the NYT...
And to make the story even better, we are told that M. Cobb has been reprimanded by the WH's chief of staff, M. Kelly for hs indiscretion..
No kidding !....He will not be authorized to have lunch anymore..
6
Exactly! They will be put in steak-house-lunch time out for at least week for this.
1
Would you like some lies with that nothing burger?
7
Even failed gambits serve a purpose. This one may be an intentional fail simply to further pollute the atmosphere around news gathering.
1
O! Gloria, Gloriosa! I love it!
Reminds me of this joke:
5)Q:What did the frog order at McDonald’s?
A:French flies and a diet Croak
https://burgerterians.wordpress.com/2016/03/04/top-10-burger-jokes/
Many other burger jokes, here.
3
Assuming this story was planted, here we are debating whether and why, while the GOP is busy trying to get of Obamacare.
Keep your eye on the ball, folks!
13
So obviously fake news.
1
What is fake? The reporting of the conversation in the restaurant? The reported disagreement between two lawyers in handling the BIGGEST case of their careers? Check the list of reservations or the payments by credit cards that day at that time. If it was totally fake news then the data could confirm. Keep in mind that McGahn isn't there to protect the president, but Cobb is. Conflict is expected when purposes diverge.
4
Yes, but, you have to admit, this is high quality fake news.
What he means is that the "accidentally overheard at a steakhouse" aspect is fake. This was pretty obviously set up by Cobb and the NYT reporter to leak this 'dispute,' which may or may not actually exist.
Very simple fix! Have The Secret service pat down-damnear strip search every single employee and cabinet member that comes into the White House! . Make what the TSA does at the airports look like a day at Romper Room! Problem solved
2
And take away the smartphones, because they can be used to record and send along conversations as well. That would serve Trump as well, as it would stop his incessant and juvenile tweeting.
1
Leaks don't merely involve wired conversations. Leaks can be as simple as a staffer picking up a phone and calling a journalist with information observed or overheard. All the patting down and TSA routine you recommend is overkill in my estimation. We know that this White House is possibly the leakiest government building ever.
2
I am convinced the leaks are from White House personnel who fell in love with Michelle Obama during her 8 years of living there. I would not be surprised to hear of someone in housekeeping calling her and letting her know who came out of which office or what broken vase had to be cleaned up after an argument or anything else.
So, what happened to Russia planting Facebook ads and winning the Presidency.
Chicago Democrats need to put in a call to the Russians.
To think they have to assemble patronage armies to win elections when all they have to do is run Facebook ads.
2
Good one! Russia leapfrogging Chicago in rigging elections is pretty farcical and funny!
Just look at the photos in this article and you can see some of what is happening. Look at McGahn's face as he looks at Trump McGahn. Then look at Cobb's portrait photo.
McGahn is a realist and Cobb is full of himself. Cobb can't even keep his mouth shut at a public setting. Cobb thinks he knows everything and can talk his way out of anything.
I'm sure Trump likes Cobb better, because he is more like Trump. When the crash finally comes, they will end up blaming each other. It can't come soon enough.
13
McGahn's cell phone is now buzzing.
Mr. Mueller would like to speak to him about the "documents in the safe."
9
In matters like this, one should ALWAYS assume that others are wired.
In fact, one should always conduct one's everyday affairs as though nothing is private. Be like Caesar's wife--above reproach.
6
Good advice but this is DC so how is this done? I think I'd put a wire/camera on myself and record every minute of life, 24/7/365, as a record to use against those who will lie. DC is full of some very nasty swamp creatures.
3
Yes, that's a good idea too. Just check whether your local jurisdictions have two-party recording laws.
2
I'd advise against making ones self aware of any laws pertaining to making recordings of others. I think Proudly was referring to recording themselves 24/7/365. Any second or third parties captured would be incidental.
1
There should be no debate about erring on the side of full disclosure. The Attorney-Client privilege can be waived. Moreover, there is no privilege if the communication is in furtherance of a crime. Consequently, the parties to the communication should assure the public there was no attempt to obstruct justice. Additionally, in the course of many criminal trials, the fact finder ends up learning through alternative means, directly or indirectly, the facts surrounding the communication. When the fact finder learns of the subject matter of the communication, the proponent of the evidence has the advantage of stating he or she was candid with the fact finder. One who withholds the subject matter, based upon privilege, can be looked at as using the privilege offensively to withhold the truth.
The suggestion that future presidency's could be jeopardized is specious, given the failure to disclose could be looked upon as crooked itself.
126
Following Ben's line of reasoning, Mr. Trump should immediately release the past ten years of his income taxes.
I, too, believe "full disclosure" is called for. But Trump has never done this, even when he thinks he is doing it. Could he possibly imagine what this might amount to? He would have to look more closely into the fears he denies with every public performance.
3
I thought the Trump staff routinely flew to Mar-a-Lago for lunch? Seems like a good idea under the circumstances.
7
Cobb talked loudly at a popular DC spot for politicos & reporters. He was trolling. Not leaking, but spraying.
Sure Kelly is furious. It's amateur hour. Trying to get McGahn in trouble, like a kid tattling.
I'm reminded of the movie Bugsy Malone. Gangsters, played by children.
17
Or to get McGahn out of the way so he can do things 'his way'. Keep in mind that while Cobb's job is to protect Trump personally, McGahn is public servant with a different objective. Lawyers often accuse the other party of what their client is guilty of. More likely McGahn is in favor of releasing all, and Cobb is behaving like Trump - as in - Trump tells you what he wants you to believe. Which one of the two looks more like Snidely Whiplash?
1
excuse me, are my tax dollars paying for high-end lawyer lunches?
19
Seriously?
1
Yes, good Christian Mike Pence has an expensive lawyer as well, about $1,000/hr. Why does he need a lawyer? Is he in Trumputin swamp as the rest?
7
Not directly.
Our tax dollars are being used to pay Trump and Kushner family enterprises exorbitant amounts which these kleptocrats then pocket, and some of which they spend on their gang of lawyers devoted to hiding Trump-Kushner crimes and subverting the rule of law.
Feel better?
6
I was unaware the Columbia School of Journalism had added a course on eavesdropping to its curriculum.
I want aggressive reporting. However, I do not think the New York Times or individual reporters enhance their reputations with newsmakers or the public when they are perceived to be unfair.
Those who loath Trump will ignore any methods used to gather any facts to support any unfavorable story. Trump is an oaf. I get it.
It is easy for a reporter or editor to be fair to those he or she likes or respects or agrees with. The challenge comes when they do not.
7
Really, it's the reporters fault that these lawyers would go to a public place and talk about public politicians who happen to be their clients? It wasn't like Mr. Fogel set-up the counslers and bugged the table. They were speaking loud enough to be heard. They are the ones that need and probably disbarred after blowing attorney-client privilege.
8
What's unfair about overhearing a conversation in a public place and reporting on it? Sounds as if Mr. Cobb was more than a little indiscreet - if he wanted his discussion to be private, he wouldn't have had it at a restaurant where anyone could hear what he was saying. It's not as if the reporter slid his chair over next to Cobb so that he could hear better. And Cobb couldn't have been speaking softly. Sorry, no unfair journalism here...but perhaps Mr. Cobb should be reminded that loose lips sink ships. Including ships of state. I find the fact that a lawyer would talk so freely in a public place rather appalling. He's not refuting anything that was reported, is he?
8
It would be journalistic malpractice to overhear such a conversation and not report it. Don't blame the messenger.
5
I agree with other commenters that this looks and smells like a setup. Another shiny object thrown out to the public, conveniently timed after the news that Mueller is about to interview West Wing staff. Let's get the NYT to interview Cobb so he can make Trump look innocent by asserting how open and cooperative his lawyers are being. And what better way to make it happen than to go on a fishing expedition in a public restaurant just a few doors away from the NYT office?
It's also telling that conflict between McGahn, who represents the White House and not Trump personally, and Trump's own lawyers is thrown out there as well. Makes the Cobb contingent look noble and squeaky clean. That Dowd even gave a civil reply to a request for comment is another phenomenon pointing to a hoax. He is famous for telling nosey reporters to remove themselves to a very hot place.
What all those who may have planned this as a deliberate leak may NOT have planned on is that people are pretty much familiar with Trump tactics these days and can guess the source and the reasons for it.
11
The alleged conundrum and tension over failing to assert privilege out of concern for future impairment of such privilege, and a wish for "full cooperation" is disingenuous. Any and all documents and conversations may be disclosed "without waiving the assertion of executive privilege". In essence, counsel asserts that the information is being disclosed despite a legitimate legal objection and defense to such disclosure. It is done all the time with respect to all sorts of privilege.
1
Historians will eventually write about this as one of the most corrupt periods in American politics.
35
Your comment would be more accurate if your were to delete "one of" -
- unless you are anticipating the accelerating moral depravity of the Republican plutocracy likely to follow the Trump administration.
4
Yes. A corrupt media and corrupt oppositional party. It's very nature described as 'The Resistance." And lately we see it filtering down to young men and women covering their faces in masks and bandanas so authorities are unable to identify the offenders assaulting people trying to exercise their First Amendment rights while public authorities stand by and fail to act. Very corrupt indeed.
1
But the Special Counsel was appointed by the Republicans, hardly the oppositional party.
1
No matter what, the American public will be paying everyone's bill. If you want the lawyers to go away, just run out of money.
6
At the risk of sounding paranoid...
A bunch of seasoned Washington types just happen to have a loud conversation right next to a NYTimes reporter.
We learn from "leaks" that there are two camps -
One convinced of Trump's innocence and wanted to hand over everything!
One convinced of Trump's innocence, but concerned about Presidential prerogative, precedent, and the long and sober arc of history!
And of course, in the most leak-sensitive administration ever, these indiscretions are wrist-slapped and forgiven.
... so, this is NOT staged and contrived, despite it's schlocky, spec-script-for-The-Americans feel? Cool. Cool.
15
I think you've got it pegged!
Had the Electoral College performed their duty according to the dictum of the Constitution, the USA would not be in this mess today. Those confused or doubting this reality are well advised to enroll at their local university for a semester's class in the Constitution of the United States because itrequiresa scholar to help comprehend the Federalist Papers and the supporting history and philosophy.
4
You may be too young to remember but one of the first things the GOP did to "reconstruct" (read that destroy) our government and to pervert its protective design is to pass law relating to the Electoral College(EC). I do not have an exact memory of what happened but I do recall that the changes made it so that the original purpose could be subverted. I think what they did was make it so that the states could have a say in how their representatives to the EC voted. As you well know removes their independence which is what they have to have to work as originally designed.
It is all going according to plan.
1
The Federalist Papers are not the law of the land. It really doesn't matter one whit what they say. They are, in fact, over 200 years old.
1
LT--you are correct. The Federalist Papers are not the law of the land. But what I dispute is that they do not matter. If you have Supreme Court justices saying that original intent is the doctrine by which they decide cases, and a lot of the intent of the writers of the Constitution is documented in the Federalist Papers, then it decidedly does matter what the Federalist Papers say.
6
I'm not convinced this story wasn't planted by the White House to create the impression that 45's legal team believes there's nothing incriminating and the only issue is a technical one - protecting executive privilege. Yeah... right...
20
Oh brother. How extremely unprofessional, at best, for these two attorneys to be discussing the case in such a public forum! What the H.E. double hockey sticks were they thinking - were they thinking at all???? As for the rest, I believe this sentence sums up the current state of affairs nicely, and I expect it will only get more paranoid from here on out: "The uncertainty has grown to the point that White House officials privately express fear that colleagues may be wearing a wire to surreptitiously record conversations for Mr. Mueller."
7
excuse me, is my nyt subscription paying for high-end steak lunches?
3
Yes, and your tax dollars as well. Which would you say is better spent?
7
Could be. What's the issue with that?
2
The NY Times may be paying for reporter lunches at high end Washington restaurants. But, as this story demonstrates, isn't that where the newsmakers eat and where many stories originate.
3
So these are the high priced attorneys of Trump. Other than Kelly, Cohn and McMaster; who does Trump have working for him, and ultimately us, that is competent to serve in the positions they hold? This just further erodes any belief that it won't get worse. It simply keeps getting worse day-in and day-out.
7
It is very telling that some people fear their colleagues may be wearing a wire. First that kind of paranoia usually exists because the paranoid has been doing similar things to others. Secondly what would it matter if they were not violating the law?
I'd like to point out that the number of prosecutors hired by the special counsel does not indicate much more than an effort to be thorough. Trumps whole business empire has relied upon him being skilled at using the legal system to get away with things. I'd first suggest that Meuller is making sure all I's are dotted and T's are crossed to minimize the effectiveness any arguments that try to undermine the conclusions he draws by pointing to poor process in his method.
10
A reporter "...happened to be at the next table" as Trump's personal attorney is discussing the case, probably regarding his enemy in the White House - in an obviously public place and loudly enough to be overheard. You have to love this.
22
If only my hearing was this good.
1
A deliberate plant, not an accidentally overheard conversation? Still, an interesting article.
8
It smacks of a John LeCarre novel.
6
I imagine the disconnect between the attorneys comes down to this: one thinks his client is innocent, one knows his client is not.
It's not hard to reckon who believes what, given the circumstances.
241
While the investigation is easing into the trump presidency, it would seem that many of the "emails and documents requested" are from pre-inaugural days and that none of those artifacts have privilege.
What the article is leading us to believe is that if Mr. McGahn can convince president trump to invoke executive privilege then Mr. McGahn is free to lie through his teeth. But if the president follows Mr. Cobb's advice, then Mr. McGahn is will have to tell the truth.
Is Mr. McGahn afraid of being found complicit in any Russian dealing?
7
Lovely! Yet more divisions are erupting in the House of Donald, this time between his legal counsel. Why would any lawyer sanely accept to represent a serial liar, cheat, opportunist, and generally amoral individual? They will all be tainted by their association with our Con-in-Chief. Will it be worth it gentlemen?
17
Follow the money.
4
Let's call it a "Matter".
"Why would any lawyer sanely accept to represent a serial liar, cheat, opportunist, and generally amoral individual?"
Is that what you asked the lawyers for Bill & Hillary?
I have a novel idea- just tell the truth. Period. Get out in front of it. You either did something or you didn't - whats the problem? If you are clashing over telling the truth then right there, you have lost the argument.
19
This happens when your guilty of so many crimes you don't know where to start.
20
So, the NYT reporter just happened to be sitting in the next table and just happened to overhear what Cobb was saying to Dowd. Is it possible that the news media, including the prestigious New York Times, is now furtively spying on government officials, overhearing their private conversations, and then printing them for all to see. Apparently, public officials no longer have even a small zone of privacy around their duties that keep the press from intruding. And, please notice that the NYT printed all this with not a hint of apology for its spying.
5
Thank you, New York Times! What is Mr McCain trying to hide? They have offices to talk in. if they're going to talk in public, I for one am glad to "overhear" it. We desperately need to get to the bottom if how much foreign country interfered in our election, and how much the winners cooperated with them.
3
if they intended this to be private, they why have the conversation in a public place? Hearing something loud enough for anyone present to hear is not spying.
7
JAM: Try on some "alternative facts" you are surely resistant to: NYT's Washington Bureau reporters eat lunch, often once a day. And, sometimes they eat where they work [pun intended], and that occasionally places them in proximity to others who also eat where they work, i.e., Washginton insiders. And, that means that if said Washington insiders are cavalier about their conversations in such public places, they are likely to be overheard. Or, I guess if you're so inclined, as you obviously are, you can react as you chose to and create a ridiculous conspiracy theory of spying by newspaper reporters. But, it still doesn't deflect from the reality that the Washington insiders were talking so loudly about sensitive matters in a public restaurant that people at adjacent tables could hear them. Guess that is the NYT's fault, somehow, right?
2
Are we paying for all of these people? How much?
Do they get to fly to the golf course every weekend on Air Force One, too?
5
Can I be seated over there at that table? I hope to spy on fellow diners and let my imagination run wild with the snippets I thought I heard.
I am a NYT reporter.
The illusion of facts is quite enough when the subject is the phony, made up Russia conspiracy sham.
1
You may sit at whichever open seat you wish. And it doesn't take much imagination, this administration is pretty much airing its dirty laundry through many venues.
8
But what do Trump's lawyer's lawyers say? They must suspect that Trump's lawyers are implicated in the treasonous behavior. In fact, Trump's lawyer's lawyers should consider getting lawyers. This way when they are convicted, they will have several dozens lawyers in the courtroom and they can fight their way out. Not only has Trump NOT drained the swamp, the swamp is where Trump lives and he is repopulating it.
7
Trump lawyers, spun web "of legalese deceit",to not give evidence to the Special Prosecutor,because of concern about "how to handle demands of investigators without surrendering the institutional prerogatives of the office of the presidency" is laughable...........Don the Con was not representing the office of POTUS while colluding with his campaign staff, national security adviser, and others,to allow Russian interference in US elections,nor was he representing the office of POTUS while knowingly (even publicly admitting) that he obstructed investigation into Russian collusion by firing Comey.
Trump lost his "exclusive right or privilege" as president because he was not acting on behalf of the country or American people.His fate is sealed ,by volumes of evidence already in the Special Prosecutors possession.
No flock of lawyers can help him.....except stalling and interference by unpatriotic Republican politicians !
3
What I find amazing is the loyalty expressed by Trump's attorneys. They are "devoted" to a man who seems to limit being loyal to his immediate family. But lets not forget how he betrayed his brother. Trump family, beware.
150
It's quite surreal when the White House lawyer has a lawyer. Will the lawyer's lawyer also get a lawyer? Maybe the conflict between Trump's White House counsel/lawyer (McGahn) and the outside lawyer (Cobb) is that McGahn can indieed be prosecuted if indeed there is any malfeasance. (Hence he feels impelled to hire a lawyer) and wouldn't want to reveal all, whereas the outsider Cobb would have clean hands, which perhaps explains why one of these gentlemen is so resistant to hand over everything and the other, not wishing to run afoul of the law and risk disbarment, wants to do exactly what he is being told to do? Seems to me that might explain the difference in attitude? Just asking.
5
There were but 3 items of interest to this reader in that account...1) the notion that no one perceived an exchange took place at Towers meeting with the Russians/Don Jr. 2) What documents does McGahn have locked up in his safe and are they germane to the Mueller investigation. 3) Wyy would such high profile WH individuals be sitting outdoors and discussing (loudly) such sensitive matters? Was it purposeful?
3
3. Drunk, maybe?
1
Yes, or drunk on power,
Or a Ruse.
2
Who in this group wouldn't be wearing a wire?
You know, "The art of the deal".
2
For their own benefit as well as for ours, they should cooperate with his impeachment. It should be evident to everyone by now that he is an unstable human being and unfit for the job.
8
Trump rants and raves about "leaks," but hires loose-lipped lawyers.
8
The approach of "turning over as many of the emails and documents requested by the special counsel as possible" is antithetical to the Roy Cohn philosophy of "give them nothing." I don't think Mr. Cobb is long for this job.
5
Trump has created a 'no holds barred' atmosphere for the press after his constant vicious attacks aimed at undermining the work they do. Why should the press exercise any restraint in exposing the secret dealings, the conflicts, the pettiness, the indecency and all that is ugly in this illegitimate occupation of the oval office? They owe him nothing except to continue to inform the suffering public so that we can organize to save our country.
10
"The friction escalated in recent days after Mr. Cobb was overheard by a reporter for The New York Times discussing the dispute during a lunchtime conversation at a popular Washington steakhouse."
Yes, this is what any client would expect from his/her lawyer: gratuitous and unauthorized waiver of the attorney-client privilege by discussing confidential matters in public. Does Mr. Cobb have a law degree from an accredited law school?
Why does everything about this administration scream Amateur Hour?
8
He was the top of his class at Trump U.
Ya' know we (the majority of us) have endured, since the '15-'16 GOP general election primary season, a constant assault on our just about anything/everything you'd care to point your finger at. With the constant attempts at corrupting honored traditions the trashing of established and accepted practices the smearing of our stalwart allies the list is seemingly endless. And now these two quasi intellectual "lawyers" breaking a long standing "rule" of not discussing your cases in public, outside the office as it were for all the logical reasons. I'm glad they were openly divulging seeming cracks/infighting among their ranks. And additionally in doing so, beyond the scandalous disregard of professional tenets, it shows them to think themselves as, "all that", beyond common practice, they have demonstrated their elitism. Again my thanks (not) to those that believed that this boorish rogue (Trump) was the answer to their prayers.
5
"Boorish rogue". Of all the adjectives I've heard used to describe this horrifyingly poor excuse for a president, this has to be in my top ten.
3
Our Fake Presidents lawyers are not going to cooperate on the Russia investigation because they know he is guilty.
9
The longer lawyers can stretch this all out the longer they can bill Trump.
1
They were probably meeting to try to find out if Crooked Donnie intends to pay them for their expertise.....
7
Steak for lunch . . .say no more. Let's hope the tent collapses soon on this whole circus, just let the animals out first.
8
At the risk of sounding ignorant and stupid, I'm just gonna keep chanting, "Lock them up! Lock them up."
11
Set-up? This is just another of many examples of the crowded Trump clown car's sheer stupidity and manipulation of information for distraction away from the Russia investigation.
12
I imagine that Mr. Cobb is an advocate for full disclosure because President Trump has told him that he did nothing wrong, whereas Mr. McGahn knows better. Cobb's tell-it-all-brother approach would be fine if he didn't have a liar for a client.
24
The article says, "Mr. McGahn supports cooperation, but has expressed worry about setting a precedent that would weaken the White House long after Mr. Trump’s tenure is over."
It is clear, from the daily destruction of OUR government agencies meant to protect the general population from Robber Barons like The Con Don and his brethren, that the President has too much power. It is also clear that OUR elected officials can be purchased by the same Robber Barons for very little if WE THE PEOPLE do not watch them carefully and throw them out of office the minute we smell corruption by the wealthiest.
The Robber Barons count on their attempts to disassociate the general population from OUR government so they can rob us with little interference. However, there are still socially conscious, intelligent, experienced people like Senator Elizabeth Warren who care about The United States of America and work hard every single day to preserve/protect/restore democratic governance and the opportunity it once offered for average hard-working Americans to prosper.
Wealth inequality, through Robber Baron "market" manipulation and the theft of OUR government contracts, OUR 401k "investments" and OUR consumer dollars - and now the hostile takeover of OUR white hose is the real problem in America and around the world.
WE THE PEOPLE must re-engage in OUR government and elect/hire people who want to preserve true democracy - social and economic equity for ALL Americans. NOW is the time.
5
Donald Trump just misses his first legal love, the psychopathic McCarthy-ite Roy Cohn, who if he were around to counsel Donald, could more expertly help sink America into the cesspool of collapsed American values that allowed a selfish solipsist like Donald to rig his way to the Oval Office.
The Imposter-In-Chief is a career scofflaw who's been gleefully breaking the law since he reached adulthood, protected by hired shysters who specialize in vexatious counter-attack, deflection and settling criminal matters for pennies on the dollar.
This is the first real time Donald Trump has had to seriously deal with the law, and it makes him VERY uncomfortable.
Go, Robert Mueller, go !
195
Pretty sure his bad behavior(s) started well before legal age ... he didn't get shipped off to military school for nothing!
5
As I understand it, McGahn is not one of Trump's personal attorneys, but that he represents the office of the president - not the man who is president. Does the attorney-client privilege apply to communications between McGahn and Trump? Does the privilege apply at all to documents that are official government documents? Is the privilege shattered if McGahn is present in a meeting between Trump and one or more her his personal lawyers? I will appreciate an in depth look by the Times at these questions as well as whether executive privilege applies to any of the documents at issue.
44
Better to read up on current case law and draw your own conclusions in this admittedly murky area.
2
If Mr. McGahn is so worried about setting a precedent that could weaken the White House then he should just get his client out of there. It is an inherent property of Trump that he debases anything that he touches.
167
Mr. McGahn appears to be violating professional ethics, in that Trump is his client, not (his view) the practice of executive privilege or some hypothetical future president. There is a clear conflict of interest between Trump's (his client's) interests and McGahn's own view of the interests he is serving.
Mr. Cobb is following Trump's interests, but McGahn has admitted he is not.
This is not just a difference of opinion about how to best serve Trump's interests; this is McGahn clearly stating that he has other interests. If McGahn has not followed the rules for divulging this conflict of interest, and of getting written waiver from Trump (if the conflict is even waivable), then McGahn is violating professional ethics.
McGahn is NOT Trump's lawyer.
4
No. McGahn represents the office of the President, not Trump,personally.
4
Mr. McGahn's area of concern as White House counsel is not devoted solely to protecting the President - there is a large grey area and large areas of overlap into general White House and administration oversight of SOME matters that blur the lines about whom it is that Mr. McGahn "represents" -- and it cannot be defined merely by looking at the typical Canon of Legal Ethics. This is not a black/white issue, in other words.
2
If the president has nothing to hide, the issue of executive privilege shouldn’t matter. If Mr. Cobb is correct that any documents turned over to Robert Mueller will exonerate the president of any wrongdoing, then why doesn’t he turn them over immediately? Is Mr. McGahn fearful of losing an executive privilege bargaining chip too soon by going along with Mr. Cobb? If the president is being “fully transparent” during these proceedings, then why all the infighting between the president’s legal team? They seem not to be on the same page.
21
And any time all members of a client's team are not *115%* on the exact same page, Occam's Razor says you can be sure it's due to confusion, turf, & personalities.
1
So now we know there are papers in a safe. Overheard at a public restaurant?
I doubt it.
As Trump explicitly pointed out during the campaign, Clinton would not be able to be a good POTUS because she would be mired in legal matters due to the investigations into her horrors.
Well, Trump finds himself in just such a situation. Everyone in the White House has personal lawyers now. Bills are mounting and not all get to use donations to pay said bills. Everyone is a conflict of self-interest to everyone else. A neat and tidy nest of vipers.
Was this luncheon just Act 1?
Trump will do anything to keep HIMSELF safe. That is the only thing we know for certain.
23
Good reminder and for what it's worth: hindsight let's us see that Trump's warning about Clinton was another example of the psychological theory of "projection" that what one says about others what is actually true for the one saying it.
Unfortunately, 'projection' isn't useful for a journalist because it is just a puff of hot air, no smoking gun, but at least it suggests what stones to turn over for discovering what is true.
4
Don't lose sight: there is enough in the public record to impeach Trump NOW. And with this GOP Congress, if the president were a Democrat, would have been impeached long ago.
65
Agreed in totality. However simply *because* of the sheer mass of known info, the proper rabbit holes have to be followed all the way down, & we have to be sure each one's track is absolutely bulletproof & Trumpproof. An unbeatable case takes one hell of a lot of crafting. :\
3
I hope a Court finds that they waived the attorney-client privilege and all their files are opened to the Special Counsel. They lose their licenses, and Trump is exposed.
49
Before this is over, all the lawyers will have lawyers. Maybe even their lawyers will have lawyers. Can you hear the calliope music under the Trump Big Top? Plenty of hot air to run it.
12
More leaks than a French intersection.
5
You gotta love lawyers. I worked for them for 30 years and they are masters of lies and obfuscation. And now in this administration it seems we have lawyers hiring lawyers. You have to give Trump credit for one thing. He's creating jobs for lawyers.
26
Mueller's crack prosecutors are inserting their spade forks into a complex pile of manure that has been hiding the real Russian secret, the targeted lies funneled through Facebook, aimed by data from Cambridge Analytica, Robert Mercer's and Steve Bannon's super-sophisticated "consumer" targeting operation. IMHO. Far more effective in actually moving (and suppressing) votes than any literal hacking, this propaganda machine knew exactly who the most vulnerable voters were, down to their taste in conspiracy theories, tabloids and web sites. It knew what they suspected and feared, and hit them with well crafted lies. When all the legal fencing is finished, Americans will have the toughest kind of decisions to make about the legitimacy of this administration, I'm betting.
68
If you work for HIM, voluntarily, you won't be getting ANY sympathy here.
Find an honorable job. Any job. Seriously.
29
I must concur with the others who say this story was planted, not "overheard". It's hard to believe any high price, high profile attorney would be talking about the dirty details of this case loudly enough for his fellow diners to hear, and in this instance, report.
Also, I'm sure Trump's big takeaway is that they weren't dining at his hotel.
108
PROSECUTE RUSSIAGATE!
11
Cobb's concern has to do with potentially weakening the office. I think Mr. Trump has done a damn fine job of that on his own. In all of this, the wild card may be that Trump is not giving a lot of guidance or different marching orders to both men. And what's that in the photo? A smiling Steve Miller! That must have hurt.
15
Good point. I expect no matter who becomes President in the future (if there is a future) there will be legislation passed overwhelmingly that will put the brakes on a great many of the excesses that BEFORE TRUMP (B.T.) were handled by tradition and public expectation of a certain level of "morality" on the part of a President's action and the expectation of rational behavior. Sad that we see now the need for statutes to protect us in the future in case others attempt to inflict upon us D.J.T. treatment.
8
thank you once again to the great ny times reporters who not only gather and report important information, but write the often confusing facts in an understanable manner. so many threads, so many alliances , intrigue, conflicts, competitions, backtracks and lies. it would be impossible to know anything about this white house without intelligent , hard working journalists.
112
Would the late great Ben Bradlee have held the story and asked the reporters to try to find out what papers McGahn is holding in that safe?
I can't imagine that I could have kept my job as a lawyer if I'd had a conversation in a restaurant that was then reported by the New York Times. Unbelievable.
468
We once sat next to some medical students discussing patients at dinner. I told them it wasn't a very good idea. As how did they imagine others would react to this breach of medical ethics?
I suspect these lawyers would both recognize Times reporters and are aware of professional ethics by now.
My question therefore: Why did they plant this story?
4
You obviously have never practiced law in DC.
Unless it was a deliberate disinformation tactic.
3
How gullible can the reporter be.
It was a set up.
Now the discussion has shifted to what, when and how to produce records.
There are two sides to this and the NYT Commenters will be taking sides.
6
I don't buy the notion that these two busy lawyers were aware of the reporter's presence ahead of time and staged their conversation.
I think the facts point more to hubris on the lawyers' parts.
12
Curious - who is leaking this to the press in this leakiest White House ever. Thought the Big Orange hated leaks?
3
NY Times hits new low. Spreading gossip overheard in a restaurant. Yellow journalism at its lowest.
3
Duh, it was the reporter himself who overheard the conversation. It is completely legitimate material for journalism. As they say in the news business, "It happened, didn't it"? That fact is not affected by your desire to keep it out of the news. If you want your news presanitized, Fox (and the Murdoch press in general) have provided you with outlets.
16
It is either a Ruse or a Serious Indiscretion.
As always, what really happened, i.e., the conversation, sees the sunlight and conclusions will be drawn...by readers, by the investigators.
My gut tells me that this was an intentional leak versus an unintentional one. I find it highly dubious that these attorneys spoke loudly on this topic within the beltway. The Russia probe may not make news outside of D.C. But in Washington, it is foremost on everyone's mind.
Given what we already know about RussiaGate, any good attorney would not want to freely give info to a special counsel. The President has lots to hide and any honest thinking knows it. We just have seen all of the evidence yet. I have little doubt that it is there waiting to be discovered.
6
Totally concur. This has every single last classic hallmark of a disinformation campaign.
The breach of ethics and professionalism on the part of Mr. Cobb is breathtaking. Talking legal shop in a crowded restaurant about an ongoing investigation of the United States president and, including foreign influences in our election...wowee.
8
This all seems a bit too neat. Lawyers loudly discussing extremely sensitive info at a restaurant of all places, conveniently while a NYTimes reporter is there??? Hmmm. Any chance this was deliberately planted and the NYTimes has been played, for some reason?
60
No three-dimensional chess being played here - just the predictable slip-ups of any assignment requiring defense of the indefensible.
I hope all the lawyers are paid well. Me, I'd rather be chasing ambulances.
5
Is there any chance you are trying to spin the story? You betcha!
4
It is always amateurs' night in the Trump White House. It's one of those movies that are so bad you start thinking it's intentional... and yet it's not.
53
What did Mr Cobb mean when he is quoted as to his response to Donald Trump Junior's meeting with Russian representatives with historic ties to Russian policies: that "the public does not perceive that an exchange occurred." Why would the President's senior lawyer make this comment?
13
Especially since the public DOES understand that just because he didn't get an "info" doesn't mean its still not a crime to seek it.
8
I'm not sure John Kelly understands who has employed Cobb. But then, Kelly argued "passionately" that Mexico was an absolute basket case when Trump, Schumer, and Pelosi were discussing a graceful exit for the Emperor wearing no clothes in his inane actions on DACA. What a house of cards!
8
Why not complete openness?
That is, if the Trump administration has nothing to hide.
11
You should be grateful you have never been anywhere near a criminal investigation of someone who appears suspicious but is in fact innocent. I'm not saying Trump is innocent. I am saying his lawyers' behavior may well be similar or even the same regardless of his guilt or innocence.
1
I love the smell of panic in the WH in the morning. The noose is getting tighter and nerves are beginning to fray. Hopefully, the WH won't try to hold back or destroy evidence because Mueller has people on the inside and that would be a straight ticket to Leavenworth. One can only hope.
115
Top lawyers don't inadvertently and loudly discuss confidential legal matters in public, period. I suspect their intent was to put pressure on McGahn via this overheard conversation. Other than the McGahn stuff, nothing significant was revealed. In fact, they make it sound like everything is just peachy for Trump and his family. No perception of an exchange at the Trump Tower meeting? Only in their wildest dreams, and this fake news leak.
380
Top lawyers also don't engage in public leaking of information at restaurants. Whether deliberate or inadvertent (I suspect the latter because the incompetence of those involved with Trump knows no bounds), it is highly unprofessional. They should resign.
12
Certainly not after a few drinks on the expense account. Definitely not in the heat of argument.
1
Don't they forfeit client confidentiality by speaking in public so that it is overheard?
But yes, between the anonymous sourcing and the leaking, it appears that the presence of a Times reporter at the next table was detected as readliy as a fancy restaurant recognizes the arrival of the Times' (or other) restaurant critic there for an "anonymous" visit.
1
What's the best way to lie without losing our law licenses? We, The People can only depend on Mr. Mueller, not our elected officials to protect us these days. How sad for us who are not in power or individually influential, eh? All these people worth power and little integrity does not bode well for our liberty, for sure.
37
Cobb appears to think nothing in the documents connect Trump to anything illegal. Does he really know that? Transparency is a good approach, but one has to wonder if there are other documents somewhere what would finally blow this investigation open once and for all. In the meantime, Bannon's quest to destroy the administrative state is continuing apace as the State Department, for one, is disappearing under our very eyes. What to focus on first?
17
I wonder if the lunch plans were set up by Trump legal team insiders as a way to get information to the outside world.
In any event it sounds like the Trump lawyers will be eating takeout for lunch from now on.
68
Trump's lawyers have now their own lawyers... And who pays for all these expensive attorney fees? And how much this entire charade will cost the country, credibility-wise?
101
Well, Trump did promise to create jobs and the lawyering profession is doing well.
10
"The uncertainty has grown to the point that White House officials privately express fear that colleagues may be wearing a wire to surreptitiously record conversations for Mr. Mueller."
But if this whole investigation is nothing but a liberal witch hunt, why would they be worried about... Oh. Never mind.
Let the jumping of the rats from this sinking ship begin!
152
I don't believe that this conversation was overheard. I think that the info about Mc Gahn holding documents in his safe was supposed to be "overheard" by the next table and ultimately published. Talk about leaking at the highest level!
There's a lot of maneuvering going on in this administration, and especially in the White House. Even the lawyers have lawyers, and too many lawyers is never a good thing! They are not all on the same side, after all.
113
I disagree. First look at the egos involved, you can hear the same thing going on in any airport or train. Some have been reported in the past by newspapers just like this.
Trump is not McGahn's client. The office of the Presidency is. McGahn's job is to protect the office, not the holder.
134
Thank you for probably the only intelligent comment on this board. And let's add, as such, it is not in McGahn's interest to make the President's office a genuflection pad to kowtow to Congress or any special counsel (now known as the fourth branch of government). Having said that, if one were able to make a choice, stiffing Congress would be it. One, it keeps the Administrative branch on even keel with Congress, a real branch, and two it's justifiable on the basis that information is being shared with the special counsel and thus off limits to others.
1
You'd like to think that, but think again.
1
The stench from the White House sewer is likely to overpower even the most professional lawyer who wades into this expanding overflow pool of muck.
35
Demonstrate's how stupid the President for hiring these $1200.00 hour high-horse idiots. Also how these prominent, successful lawyers think they're better and smarter than anyone else. Turns out they're actually more stupid and clueless than the average American citizen. How long before we hear "Your Fired"? Just goes to prove obtaining a B.A. from Harvard and a J.D. from Georgetown doesn't mean you can't still be dumb and ignorant.
5
We can only hope that Mueller has already gotten a subpoena for those documents in the safe. A smoking gun? Seems like everything done or said by this White House is smoldering with anger, distrust, ego, and hatred. Oh, how I wish Hillary had prevailed.
189
This is a(nother) coulda-had-a-V8 moment for those who didn't vote for President Clinton (or worse, voted for covfefe) because she was "under investigation".
Kim Jong-un has less ministerial intrigue in his office.
17
loose lips sink ships
25
This ship has been taking on water since before day 1.
9
In this case, I believe, the correct quote would be "Loose lips, pink slips"
6
And big Chumps sink Trumps.
2