to get his. the testimony but if they do he can t imagine mueller defying the law. mueller made it clear he doesn t want to do this. do you believe he has an obligation to speak directly to the american people. i think if congress asks him he ll go subpoena or no subpoena. i doubt he would need a subpoena to come. he ll show up. he made it perfectly clear he really doesn t want to do this. that doesn t mean he wouldn t and doesn t mean there s not value from the american people to hear from him at least in summary form. most americans have not read the 484 page report because they would see him on television talking. exactly. i think members of congress would ask reasonable question of former director mueller to get a clear sense of what he was
1950s cartoon characters. yeah, that s right. what a spectacle that would be if, in fact, that happened. if the president were to fire the deputy attorney general and the attorney general then quit in protest in solidarity with him. you d have the makings of another saturday night massacre from 1973 when richard nixon sought to fire the special prosecutor in the watergate probe and the attorney general and deputy attorney general in that case refused to do it and were pushed out as a result. it has such an echo of watergate that that s the obvious thinking that sessions has here, that perhaps the president wouldn t want to risk that kind of political blow back if both of them were to go at the same time. now, we ve seen repeatedly this president doesn t seem to, you know, be intimidated by the sorts of constraints that applied on all politicians. he doesn t shy away from things politicians say are risky. doesn t mean he wouldn t do it. that was clearly the intent of that story coming
meeting as it s described by a white house official, is not on the president s public schedule. doesn t mean he wouldn t be there or couldn t just show up. this could be an interesting interaction behind the scenes if the two men do see each other face-to-face given this very public feud, this unusual feud that s been playing out largely as some of our colleagues have described it, cyberbullying on behalf of the president against one of his own cabinet members here. but the bottom line is it appears that at least for the moment, this is a pretty decent game of chicken right now. the president said only time will tell about the future of jeff sessions. jeff sessions aides and those close to him, his allies, standing behind him saying he s not going anywhere, that he has his dream job, that he s proud of what he s done so far on behalf of the president, on behalf of this administration. just yesterday speaking out even as he was being attacked in recent days as beleaguered and weak by p
again or did he mislead the american people? i believe i ve answered that question. if you have, i don t think i caught it. because the vice president said yesterday that the president chose to accept and support the decision of the deputy attorney general and attorney general he certainly accepted the deputy attorney but that doesn t mean he wouldn t still accept his recommendation. they re on the same page. why are we arguing about the semantics of whether or not he accepted it. they agreed! i m not sure how he didn t accept the deputy attorney general s recommendation when they agreed with one another. so let me just switch topics, slightly. if the president knew he was going to do this, why ask for those memos to begin with? why not just fire comey? why have these memos put out and explain that he did it because of the moemos, but then say tha he was going to do it either way. i m confused as to why we even got those memos? look, i think he wanted to get the feedback fr
why didn t that happen in this case? it varies, actually. not always, particularly sometimes the protocol when it is not the head of state and prior to the president meeting with the head of state, that wouldn t always take place. again, proper protocol was followed in this procedure. that has president been questioned by the fbi with regard to their investigation into russian interference in the election. not that i m aware of. should he expect to be? i m not even going to guess. in the justice department, there s a general protocol that discourages conversation with the president of the united states of the fbi director about anything that might involve the president. that s a jm aspect of the protocol. to ensure that there is no confusion about political interference or any kind or even the impression or the appearance of political influence on the fbi. that s the standard procedure. you just said it was appropriate