The only way to find out what a witness actually said in lengthy testimony or discussions is to see a transcript, and then to go over it and over it. I do this, and I am always surprised at what lurks, unnoticed until a microscopic examination is done. Even then, I’m sure I miss things. When a client asks, “How did the deposition (of the other side’s witness) go?” I reply, “We’ll find out when we get the transcript.”
So even if McGahn had sat down with Trump’s lawyers for hours, or made extensive notes soon after his meetings with Mueller’s people, they still would not really know what he might have said, likely without realizing what he was saying.
What they’re saying is that Rudy was on MTP yesterday behaving as if he knows things that he can’t possibly know.
In other news this morning, the sun rose in the east, and water is still wet.
The distraction tweet stream this morning is over the top goofy.
Thugs!
Discredited!
JFC make this nightmare end.
As the number of disparaging adjectives about Mueller and his group increases (in Trump’s tweets) the closer he feels the hot breath of justice on the back of his neck.
Question: Were McGahn’s ‘discussions’ with Mueller made under oath and such that if they were not true he could face criminal charges?
being under oath is not a thing in these discussions. If you lie, you’re a liar and it’s a crime.
Every story about Trump should begin with “the madman occupying the White House” said/did X, followed by the report “the treasonous cowardly Republicans in control of Congress had no comment”.
This becomes more alarming by the day. The pivot into deeper madness and more dangerous behavior. That pivot happened.
What is so great about Mueller is he cannot be baited into leaking any interviews.
This shows how superior he is to Donnie and Rudy.
Rand Paul has gone full Russian.
Never go full Russian.
/tropicthunder
I don’t believe Trump is smart enough to set McGahn (or most other people) up to take a fall.
If McGahn truly was being set up, then Trump had help (Bannon, Hannity, Miller?).
While I do not like Pence, I sincerely hope that the required parties have thought about the 25th amendment. …at least in their own minds. I am afraid that the ‘traitor’ has a scorched earth mentality and is fully capable of wrecking everything because things aren’t going his way.
Don’t include Hannity when making any reference to smart.
According to people close to Trump, McGahn gave the President’s lawyers a limited overview of what he told Mueller after his first interview with the special counsel in November, but Trump’s team never asked McGahn for a full accounting of what he shared.
(Kabuki.)
Technically, no. But practically, yes. It is a felony to lie to FBI agents. Period.
Both Papadopoulos and Flynn were charged with, and pled guilty to, lying to the FBI.
@atldrew is right: Being under oath is not crucial. What’s crucial is that you lie about or intentionally conceal any material fact.
I suspect he gave them his rendition of the “I don’t want to go to jail blues”
Catchy tune I’m sure more people will be singing as Mueller gets closer
Being under oath is not an element of the offense. Lying to investigators is a separate offense from perjury.
18 U.S. Code § 1001 - Statements or entries generally
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.
,
Hey, the Dotard shouldn’t worry about what McGahn might have said. All he has to do is sit for an interview with Mueller and tell the truth. 
That should clear up any misconceptions Mueller’s team might have gotten from McGahn’s testimony. /s
Over on emptywheel, Marcy Wheeler has several terrific analyses of McGahn’s motives and the flaws in Habermas’s and Schmidt’s reporting. The fact that they claim not to know whether Mueller asked McGahn about the election conspiracy, but only about obstruction of justice, is staggering. As Marcy points out, McGahn has significant expertise in campaign financing laws and could potentially have much to say about the campaign’s acceptance of things of value from the Russian government. Yet Maggie and Mike persist in framing the Dotard’s exposure as about nothing more than obstruction of justice.
Like dropping a live lobster in a pot of cold water and turning up the flame. Their uncertainties, their imaginings of near certainty magnified by their uncertainties, their ham handed striking outs against their powerful antagonists that just move the walls in, narrowing the corridors of power.
How long before Kumquat King Kong is swinging and snarling from the Empire State Building? Will there be a straight jacket big enough to contain it?
Will Giuliani disguise himself in drag to get back on Meet the Press one last time?
What McGahn knows and might have told Mueller could show Pense to be as big a liar as the rest of them. He could be disqualified in that 25th Amendment chain of command before this investigation is over. If the Dems take the House in November their Speaker could be next in line for the Presidency…