Rudy Giuliani: If Mueller goes after Ivanka, the whole country will rise up against him.
https://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Giuliani-If-Mueller-goes-after-Ivanka-Trump-the-12884977.php
there will now and forever more be clustertrumps 
What does that mean? Is that like a blank check where he can just fill in the amount he wants?
IANAL, but it looks like trial prep to me.
Quoting your cite:
And when he said “a fine woman”, he meant fine.
The orange fingerprints agree with you.
NBC has issued a clarification that the phones weren’t tapped, but being monitored. So, that they have a log but were not listening. Sounds like a significant change to the original story:
*
"EDITOR’S NOTE: Earlier today, NBC News reported that there was a wiretap on the phones of Michael Cohen, President Trump’s longtime personal attorney, citing two separate sources with knowledge of the legal proceedings involving Cohen.
But three senior U.S. officials now dispute that, saying that the monitoring of Cohen’s phones was limited to a log of calls, known as a pen register, not a wiretap where investigators can actually listen to calls.
NBC News has changed the headline and revised parts of the original article."*
That’s a huge correction and reflects poorly on NBC News. But also, there is a lot of info that the type of surveillance they were doing can compile - including live looks at SMS messages as they go back and forth (a modern day “wiretap”, really). But no, no phone recordings sadly.
How much weight does all the stuff said outside court matter for any case against Trump? No one is under oath when they post on Twitter, go on TV, etc. Couldn’t they say that everything is just being said for entertainment?
This can be broken down into two categories:
- Stuff Trump says directly
- Stuff Trump’s lawyers, spokespeople, friends, etc. say
Like, does it matter at all to the court what Giuliani is saying on TV? Couldn’t Trump say none of it is true and that Giuliani was making everything up for entertainment value?
Statements that you make which are against your own interest are often admissible in later court proceedings. It’s probably not enough on its own to convict you or cause you to lose a civil suit, but try explaining to a jury that you tell a lot of lies for entertainment purposes and see what they think about how credible you are.
In this case in particular, I’d be more worried that the statements would be used in discovery proceedings and as the basis for search warrants. Giuliani’s admission that Cohen was billing for legal services but wasn’t doing legal work for Trump is enormously significant as to what sort of attorney-client privilege may attach to Trump/Cohen communications, a subject which is currently being litigated. Also the statement that Trump reimbursed Cohen through structured retainer payments leads to various sorts of financial questions that I suspect a judge or magistrate would allow warrants or other investigation of based just on that public admission.
Nonsense, and we need to get over this. Everybody gets things wrong sometimes, especially fairly subtle distinctions like tapping vs. monitoring. Correcting the story when they find out they were wrong reflects well on NBC news, and is what sets it apart from the likes of Fox, and for that matter the GOP.
Yes to this. A certain segment of our news consumers seems to have trouble with this concept.
I largely agree with the assessment of NBC. But where it’s an issue is where 1) there seems to be a tendency to get stories wrong in one particular direction, and 2) the retractions generally come only in the most egregiously erroneous cases. The impact impact of these two factors is a skewed presentation.
Unlike FoxNews that deliberately lies from the outset.
Bullshit. There’s a reason we frown on nepotism, so that staff rise and fall on their own merits. If Ivanka did something wrong, she shouldn’t be treated differently than anyone else just because her daddy wants to date her.
A federal judge in Virginia went after Mueller, accusing him of exceeding his powers in the Manafort case
What would the “other direction” be for a story like this?
CORRECTION: *Earlier today, NBC News reported that there was definitely no monitoring of any kind done on the phones of Michael Cohen, President Trump’s longtime personal attorney, citing two separate sources with knowledge of the legal proceedings involving Cohen.
But three senior U.S. officials now dispute that, saying that Cohen’s phones were monitored to obtain a log of calls, known as a pen register. It doesn’t matter, though, because Michael Cohen is a great guy who hasn’t done anything wrong, and the FBI is conducting a total witch hunt because lying leaker Comey wanted revenge over Crooked Hillary losing the election which, by the way, Donald Trump won in the biggest landslide anybody’s ever seen, and there was NO COLLUSION.
NBC News has changed the headline and revised parts of the original article, and begs your forgiveness for the egregious error.
*
I assume this is just an attempt to get your humor in.
Sure, but don’t let it prevent you from offering an example of what you’re talking about.
IOW you genuinely thought that “get stories wrong in one direction” meant that any particular story is only wrong in one direction? Do you understand what the word “tendency” means?