Dowd is Trump's personal legal representation. McGahn is the White House Counsel.

Perhaps McGahn does not want to suffer the same fate as John Wesley Dean III and took steps to protect himself, cooperating with Mueller in a capacity beyond Dowd and Cobb's original plan.

That's the alleged story in this NYT piece. Not a quote from Trump's own personal attorney...

Which is exactly the BS the NYTimes is shoveling atm.

if i had to guess collusion ...yeah freedom of unbiased press

The NYT is reporting McGahn cooperated with Mueller's team in a fashion that was beyond the original intent that Dowd and Cobb outlined at the onset of the Special Counsel's appointment.

The validity of the story is one thing, but the distinction between this story and the one from January is another. Do you appreciate the difference?

Do you appreciate that everyone has stated that McGahn didn't give anything up, during the interviews.

I think the NYT is probably trying to make something out of nothing, but there is an alleged distinction made as to the scope of cooperation on behalf of McGahn with the Special Counsel in this story vs the one in January.

Goomshill is stating there is no new information/significant difference. If this NYT piece is valid, that's not exactly true because there is now added context into why McGahn might have cooperated with the Special Counsel in ways beyond Trump's legal team original plan.

Also, your statement is not true. McGahn did divulge information to the Special Counsel. The question is whether any of that information is enough for a potential obstruction of justice case but not whether or not he did or didn't give up anything at all as you stated.

He didn't divulge anything that was BAD for Trump. See post #2458

ah yeah ? your source: "the person"...
we can't know and they aren't allowed to talk about it

This post was edited by Saucisson6000 on Aug 18 2018 08:05pm

1) "McGahn didn't give anything up, during the interviews."

2) "He didn't divulge anything that was BAD for Trump."

Do you see the difference between these two statements?

Also, what's "bad" for Trump vs what's "good" for Trump in the context of what McGahn divulged in a potential obstruction of justice case to the Special Counsel are yet to be determined. We don't know exactly what he told the Special Counsel. We only know that he spoke with the Special Counsel for 30 hours over the past 9 months.

Dude, you're nit picking. They both mean the same thing. How long McGahn sat with Mueller means diddly.