lawyers helped them put together the statement that went to the hill. is that damning for those lawyers that michael cohen name checked them? i think we d have to drill down closer, but i think it s the editing doesn t bother me as much as what is their knowledge about when, for example, the moscow deal was closed. and if they knew it was closed in june of 2016 instead of the beginning of the year or the year before, then they re in hot water themselves. let me bring in mya on this. as i ve reported before and i ll repeat it, it s entirely possible that those leaks had some other purpose and that donald trump s written interrogatories which we don t have in our possession are accurate. that s a possibility. but if they are accurate, that would involve donald trump completely reversing what was his public claim about this. because if the sti he sticks the public claim of potentially corroborating their lies, his public claim was also like roger
and glenn concernener, former u.s. assistant donor for the district of columbia. now msnbc political analyst. suggests conspiracy charges may still be forthcoming. i want to start with you, glenn, and on roger stone. i want to play this thing that i thought was very interesting about roger stone being interviewed on trump tv about his indictment on the day of his indictment. he says something that caught a lot of people s ears. take a listen. when the president answered the written interrogatories, he correctly and honestly said roger stone and i never discussed this, and we never did. how does roger stone know what the president s answers to the interrogatories were? because he s colluding i mean, he s having conversations with the president and the president s legal team in what is arguably inappropriate because, you know, it s virtually target-to-target conversations, which are at a minimum extremely unwise and
whose latest piece is entitled trump advisor roger stone indictment in the mueller probe may signal pos and roger stone being interviewed on trump tv about his indictment on the day of his indictment. he says something that caught a lot of people s ears. take a listen. when the president answered the writ interrogatories, he correctly and honestly say me and roger stone never discussed this and we never did. how does the president knows what the president s answers to the interrogatories are? because he s having conversations with the president and the president s legal team which is arguably inappropriate. it s basically target-to-target conversations which are, at a minimum, extremely uns with and they will come back to haunt the president and roger stone.
it which is called black propaganda. so it will be interesting to see what s true and what s not in their releases. yeah, they added a little wikipedia type branding to it to make it sound extra salacious. hey, harry, you re a lawyer and we re not. i have a two-parter for you. number one, to those of you who are lay people and think it s a credit card, explain what discovery is. discovery, first of all, most importantly, is very different and very limited in the criminal context. it s not the full-bodied interrogatories and depositions you may be used to if you re ever in the civil trial. it s the provision of very limited and specified information. essentially the evidence that the government is going to use at trial and evidence that might exculpate the defendant to the defendant. and here malcolm makes a great point. what s basically happened is concord as a company has
yeah, they added a little wikipedia type branding to it to make it sound extra salacious. hey, harry, you re a lawyer and we re not. i have a two-parter for you. number one, to those of you who are lay people and think it s a credit card, explain what discovery is. discovery, first of all, most importantly, is very different and very limited in the criminal context. it s not the full-bodied interrogatories and depositions you may be used to if you re ever in the civil trial. it s the provision of very limited and specified information. essentially the evidence that the government is going to use at trial and evidence that might exculpate the defendant to the defendant. and here malcolm makes a great point. what s basically happened is concord as a company has submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the court but the defendants have not. the individuals.