Why do people think this? I honestly don’t get it. There are more liberals willing this idea into existence by virtue of their saying it than there are Jeanine Pirro and that guy in a bad-fitting suit on Fox News saying it.https://twitter.com/espinsegall/status/942448758003990528 …
-
Show this thread
-
Chris Geidner Retweeted Jon Favreau
I think this is true, insofar as it describes the aims, as we have seen them in part, but I don’t think it’s the whole story, either, or necessarily correct as to its results:https://twitter.com/jonfavs/status/942450699907895298 …
Chris Geidner added,
4 replies 18 retweets 58 likesShow this thread -
Of course, I am not saying it could never happen. Trump could, in the future, try to fire Mueller (and succeed if he was willing to go as far as he needed to go in order to do so). I’m the last person to totally rule ~out~ a Trump action.
4 replies 11 retweets 45 likesShow this thread -
Chris Geidner Retweeted Kyle Cheney
But, there are several things pointing against this being something happening in the near future. First, it is the point Ty Cobb has been most consistent about over time:https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/942201404718026752 …
Chris Geidner added,
Kyle CheneyVerified account @kyledcheneyWhite House lawyer Ty Cobb declined comment about the specific issue but reiterated a firing isn't in the offing. “As the White House has repeatedly and emphatically said for months, there is no consideration at the White House of terminating the special counsel,” Cobb said.Show this thread3 replies 15 retweets 42 likesShow this thread -
Second, Rosenstein just said he sees no cause to fire Mueller, so it would be technically complicated from Trump to do so — and that, meaning that to do so would entail shutting down others’ careers as well — would, I still believe, carry a steep political price.
10 replies 17 retweets 63 likesShow this thread -
Third, I see one key sign in the Trump campaign lawyer’s letter: Why mention the Fourth Amendment? The letter raises it, which is, primarily, about trying to exclude evidence at trial/from prosecution — which isn’t an issue if you’re setting up a Mueller firing.
7 replies 14 retweets 68 likesShow this thread -
Oh, and just a minor fourth point: Remember that line from the NYT story about Pirro eventually going on too long on an anti-Mueller “screed” in a meeting with Trump even for him and him just walking out? That.https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/09/us/politics/donald-trump-president.html …
4 replies 18 retweets 65 likesShow this thread -
In any event, my point is not to say that Trump will not ever fire Robert Mueller — that’s always been a possibility. My point is that I do not see anyone making any actual argument that has convinced me that this is something currently being considered.
15 replies 24 retweets 99 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
I don't necessarily disagree with you. But no telling what Trump might try when riled up by Fox and Friends some morning. And who knows how he'll respond to a Kushner indictment or similar.
4 replies 1 retweet 20 likes
Totally agree that there is no ability to predict how he will react on a certain day or in certain situations — and that, of course, not in any way conflicting with my point that I don’t see an argument that a firing is being planned or considered currently.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.