Jeff Sessions had no choice in the matter of firing McCabe, because of the Inspector General's report.
I would caution everybody into reading too much into this. Russia wants @JeffSessions gone.
If Andy McCabe opened a criminal investigation into Jeff Sessions but Mueller told Sessions lawyer that it had been closed, it was closed ***for a reason*** folks. And the reason wasn't "McCabe got it wrong, Sessions was transparent with Congress"
Everybody stop and think for a moment.
Compartmentalization is real. @Comey compartmentalized like a champ. I don't think McCabe was read in on Sessions. Hence McCabe's opening of a probe, and its being closed again by Bobby III Sticks. SAIC Charlie Kable didn't open a probe :)
You haven't seen @Comey complain about the firing of Andy McCabe because he knows perfectly well that the IG report tied Sessions' hands.
Anybody looking to drag down Sessions is doing Putin's work for him. Complain to and about Horowitz, if you want to; not Sessions. #McCabe
PS: just to confuse you guys even more, I have zero time for Jeff Sessions, but the man was pictured dining with Rosenstein for a reason, gang.
Steady as she goes, chaps. Hold your fire. We're getting to the end of this terrible period of US history now. Stay frosty. ;)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I am genuinely shocked that @bensasse and other nominal conservatives will vote to put a partisan boor on the Supreme Court. I am bewildered, even. As a former Conservative MP, let me say that in Britain we would never approve such a man. Never.
Conservatives, and I bleed blue (in the UK that’s the conservative color) are supposed to respect and revere institutions. Culturally we see our party as a guardian of heritage and tradition. We would never approve a gambling, partisan, shouting, emotional hack to the Court.
We as legislators, were we in the GOP’s position, would say to the President “sir, try again. Not voting for this shouty clown Kavanaugh.” You go talk to the whips, pass it up channels. There is no rush for the GOP. Easy aye vote on Gorsuch. Just give us another nominee.
Right, so per "source close to Rod Rosenstein" he has NOT resigned nor has he offered to resign.
If @RealDonaldTrump wants to add another obstruction of justice charge by firing Rosenstein, he'll have to do so. Rosenstein isn't resigning and has not offered to do so.
Rod Rosenstein ("source close to" means this) is not resigning, and has not offered to resign.
Trump may obstruct justice by firing Rosenstein, he must really long for that jail cell, but Rosenstein is not resigning.
This is probably a good time to wise folks up to the idea that if Trump fired Mueller, he wouldn't have fired the Office of Special Counsel. If Mueller spontaneously combusts in the next 5 minutes, the Trump Russia investigation will continue.
PS: I don't support #MeToo, mere accusations, like those of Don Trump Jr and Roger Stone's pal Leanne Tweeden are never enough. I believe Prof. Ford as an individual because her accusation is *credible*. She has therapists' notes from past years. Predating this nomination.
It's important to say this now, to be morally consistent. I will never support a #MeToo deprivation of due process, and I accept the statute of limitations. But confirmation is not a criminal procedure. Let both give testimony. Prof. Ford has pre-existing doctors' notes.
Ok, for a second let’s talk about the National Russia Association’s hypocrite in chief, @Dloesch.
No, @Montel_Williams did not call her a “prostitute”. He used a common metaphor for selling out your principles. So common, in fact, that Dana Loesch uses it herself.
Often.
Here @Dloesch calls @Peggynoonannyc ‘not conservative’ and part of a group of “political prostitutes” [sic]
Here is Dana Loesch @Dloesch using that same ‘political sellout as prostitute metaphor’ for “paid Soros stooges” whom she will talk to because they are “smart enough to get paid to prostitute” [sic].
On the issue of Peter Strzok, whom I respect: you either trust the current leadership of @FBI or you don’t.
The disciplinary supervisor made a recommendation; it was not binding; a higher punishment was decided upon. That’s well within the discretion of the officials involved.
Special Agent Strzok had a higher level of responsibility placed upon him in an election year and by being assigned to an incredibly sensitive investigation with vital consequences for national security. He then violated protocols. At the highest level, more is demanded.
Leadership sucks sometimes. It includes having to take punitive measures against people you personally like and know to be good people, full of integrity, if they breach national security. I have no doubt the decision has nothing to do with politics.
There are some folks on Twitter who are trying to restate this as “Russia had nothing to do with what happened IN Charlottesville”, only the aftermath.
That’s wrong. That’s not what @CNN is reporting - that Russian meddling contributed to the violence.
“The Wall Street Journal in October reported that Facebook groups with ties to Russia posted racially divisive messages ahead of Charlottesville”
Ahead of it. Russia encouraged the violence that happened, as CNN correctly reports. thehill.com/homenews/house…
You need not only propaganda, you need proximity, for violence to occur. What @RepTomGarrett is reporting the FBI told lawmakers reminds of the Russian hashtag #NotMyPresident used, in the Mueller indictment, to schedule pro- and anti- Trump rallies in NYC on the *same day*.