You are absolutely correct. The information that Rosenstein threatened to resign came from “a person close to the White House.” I agree with you that news outlets should have known better than to publish anything from anyone associated with the lying assholes in the White House without checking it first.
Today’s spin from the White House, saying that Trump was going to fire Comey regardless of the DoJ report contradicts what the administration was saying yesterday. This does lend credence to the argument that the deputy AJ threatened to quit if he was made the point person for the firing of Comey. I think a quick calculation was made that to change the story was better than having Rosenstein quit and then having to come up with a way to explain that.
Except deputy AJ says he never threatened to quit. But who would believe that liar, right?
That’s the current version of the story. You haven’t noticed how many times the story has changed?
Yep. From “deputy AG is the man with integrity - he threatened to quit!” to “deputy AG says he didn’t threaten to quit - what a liar!”.
No, from Trump didn’t make the decision until after he read the recommendation from the deputy AG to that he had made it already and was going to fire him regardless. Do you think it was his press team that lied, or Trump lied? Their stories conflict.
I’m going to split the difference between the two of you - the story on why Comey was fired and when it was decided has been contradictory coming from Trump at different times and White House. But Rosenstein never publicly said he was threatened to resign - that was a “sources close to” thing - which means it’s very possible it was just flat-out wrong. Breaking news is often at least partially incorrect.
It started here.
Maybe he did have a brief blowup. Notice Trump is now saying it was his (Trump’s ) idea all along.
Between CNN and the Trump administration, who has the better reputation for telling the truth? I know which one I trust.
Macaluso specifically asked if he threatened to quit. First he said, “I’m not quitting”, then when she repeated the question if he threatened to quit, he said, “No.”
It wasn’t exactly a forceful denial, but he’s on video saying he didn’t. So… yeah… stay tuned, I guess.
Are you satisfied now that your president has said himself that the russian investigation bothered him. It is always hard to follow Trump in his incoherence but entre his letter very strangly making that reference, the many leaks saying it was the reason and now the TV rambling interview…
Trump just threatened Comey.
“James Comey better hope that there are no “tapes” of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!”
… ahhhh, remember the halcyon days of yesteryore when admissions of Presidents taping, without their knowledge, people in the White House was something done by mistake, in Congressional testimony?
Also, these tapes are now subpoenable (sp?)… right?
I think “tapes” are a lot like “wiretaps”. The meaning is tenuous.
Maybe Trump should be the one worrying that there are “tapes”. Maybe a subpoena for them is issued. If he denies they exist he can never use them without proving that he is a liar. If he admits they exist, he may have to produce them. He has shown no ability to not say crazy, inaccurate things when he knows he is being recorded. Why would these alleged “tapes” be any different? Besides, if I were Comey (or anyone else who had the ability to do so) I’d be the one making the recordings.
Any bets on the odds between Comey directly informing the President that he was not personally under investigation, Trump hearing what he wanted to hear and completely misunderstood whatever it was that Comey said, and a straight up (and stupid) bluff?
I’m definitely not betting on the first.
What are you talking about? Trump didn’t say there WERE tapes.
But his logic holds.
If there are tapes, and they are subpoenaed but not delivered, then Trump cannot blackmail/threaten Comey any further with the tapes because now Trump has more to lose than Comey.
If there are not tapes, and they are subpoenaed and not delivered because they don’t exist, the Trump cannot blackmail/threaten Comey any further since his bluff has been called.
I think it’s most likely a combination of the second and a variant of the third.
In general, Trump’s understanding of things he hears seems to be very weak. Which is what gets him in trouble, when seeing media reports that are shaky to begin with, or being told things by other people, and then announcing or tweeting a garbled version of them (e.g. the “Obama wiretapped Trump Tower” claim, et al). So I imagine Comey told him some precise legalistic language that went completely over Trump’s head, and he seized on a few phrases here and there to take out of it what he wanted.
But beyond that, Trump is also a bombastic hot air specialist. It’s probably partially a combination of his personality and his career selling things and later in television. So even to the extent that he would have understood what Comey said, he would naturally add on another few layers of exaggeration and distortion when restating it. Not so much a bluff, which implies a guy who is making a calculated decision to say something the truth of which he himself knows, but more like a guy who is just in the habit of exaggerating everything he says in a manner most favorable to himself or his agenda.
Excellently put, F-P.