Admittedly it’s been 10 years since I last tried using track changes in microsoft word, but I remember it being such a disastrous buggy clusterfuck that it was much quicker and reliable to just manually do doc version numbers and timestamps. And smack the person who uses a date macro that automatcally updates.
Was hoping to hear things have gotten better, but apparently not.
At this point, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that votes were altered in the handful of states that decided the election.
We already know that voters were illegally purged or disenfranchised in numbers that influenced the outcome.
Cohen has provided the original version of the statement that he drafted. If you do a blackline compare of the final version to this original statement, you’ll note all the changes. If they used MS Word with redline text feature, you can also note the date of changes, ID of the computer or editor etc. You can also issue a doc request/subpoena for all emails relating to that doc and figure out who had version control and sent the doc around, including what edits were made at what point in the timeline.
And let’s face it - the Gang That Couldn’t Edit Straight never figured they would be caught (because they hadn’t been up to this point), so they probably did little to cover their tracks.
You don’t see her sinews straining to create that illusion? I see it, and I think I’m in love. That’s a solid woman. If she can handle a plow, an oral argument in front of the Supreme Court, an internet troll, and a welding torch as well as she handles that pistol, she’d be the first perfect match ever for my online dating profile.
which one?
Now if we can just find a clip of Sekulow making fun of millennials…icing on the cake.
But would he recognize their authority, I thought it was only God’s authority he obeyed.
Ralph wins the internets today
How does this line up with the SC office statement disputing the Buzzfeed story?
“BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the Special Counsel’s Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s congressional testimony are not accurate.”
I’ve always been a bit confused by that whole episode.
Beginning to look like Trump doesn’t have an honest minute in his day. It is an industry for him to make sure everything is corrupted. If he had a White House dog, the dog would end up under subpoena. You would hear sounds of a paper shredder from the presidential dog house.
Wait! Isn’t malicious interference by a crook’s lawyer with testimony privileged?
I wrote a whole thread on this, but Chuck Rosenberg, the former US Attorney who frequently appears on Maddow said at the time that the core of the Buzzfeed story was accurate. The word ‘specific statements’ is doing a lot of work there. Cohen said that Trump spoke in code that he understood. That’s not literally the same as, 'Hey Mike, lie for me ok?" “Characterization of docs and testimony” is also doing a lot of work and it ties to the meaning of the word ‘direct’. OSC looked at it narrowly as a direct, plain English statement to lie. Cohen has told us that it was mob code to lie, but now we have something more than that: an apparent direction by Trump to his attorneys to make Cohen’s statement align to Trump’s story.
“Javanka litigator Abbe Lowell.”
Still uses WordPerfect, most likely
It isn’t a problem for Trump. He can’t be indicted for any crime (allegedly), and the Senate wouldn’t muster 67 votes to convict in an impeachment trial if there were witnesses, recordings and photographs of him handing over nuclear secrets to Putin.
I think you can impeach off of this alone and name him an un-indicted co-conspirator. If enough pressure is put on Barr with the weight of evidence, Barr may have to concede this point and follow the Nixon precedent.
Seriously - they could impeach alone on the obstruction of justice he committed by firing Comey for the stated reason of stopping the Russian investigation.
I mean pick an impeachment reason - there are so many.
