Jeff Poor:
Wednesday on Fox News Channel’s “Hannity,” conservative talker Mark Levin made the case President Donald Trump was justified in his decision to fire FBI Director James Comey a day earlier.
Levin hammered one of the biggest critics of that decision, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), but not before criticizing media pundits for what he deemed to be their legal and historical illiteracy.
Partial transcript as follows:
First of all, the president didn’t order an end to the Russian investigation. Now, we have a lot of legal and historical illiterates posing as TV hosts and commentators, like Jeffrey Toobin and among others. Let me be very specific. Richard Nixon during Watergate ordered the attorney general to fire the special prosecutor, and he refused. Then he ordered the deputy attorney general to fire the special prosecutor, and he refused.
Here deputy attorney general writes a memorandum urging the attorney general and president to fire the FBI director. The attorney general attaches it to a letter, endorses it and the president of the United States fires him. It has nothing to do with Watergate. But of course, the media and the Democrats, one in the same — want it to deal with Watergate.
The president did not order in any respect an end to the Russia investigation.
But I have a couple of questions, if I might, for Chuck Schumer who is the leading demagogue and all of this. Tell me something, Mr. Schumer, can you name a single Russian, just one, who colluded with Donald Trump and his campaign? Just give us a one, one.
You’ve got intelligence committees who have been investigating. You have this interminable federal investigation that has gone on. Let’s have it, now. I have another question for Mr. Schumer. You like the independent special prosecutors. Sean, have you noticed they all use the same phrases?
“We can’t trust the Justice Department to investigate.” They can’t even name the FBI agents who are involved in this investigation. I am sure they are career agents that will do their job regardless of who the FBI director is. But Mr. Schumer likes these independent special prosecutors. Let me ask you something, do you support and independent special prosecutor for Hillary Clinton and her multiple violations of the Espionage Act?
Do you support an independent prosecutor for the Obama administration surveillance and unmasking of Trump transition team members and God knows who else? The Israeli ambassador was surveilled. The prime minister of Israel was surveilled. Members of Congress were surveilled. Jewish leaders and Jewish groups were surveilled. How about an independent investigation of that?
I’ve got another one, Mr. Schumer. How about an independent special prosecutor to investigate this whole seedy Iranian deal, with the secret deals, the ransom payments, the release of terrorists as we find out after the fact.
Let me tell you what’s going on here, Sean — the president of the United States followed the Constitution must follow the law and followed the advice of a deputy attorney general who won 94-6 in his nomination on April 26. That means almost every single Democrat voted for him. You want to know why? The guy doesn’t have a political bone in his body. He has worked for Bill Clinton. He has worked for George Bush.
The liberals and their media dont want the truth. They want to escalate this simple removal of a person from an appointed position to a scandal, make up wild stories to attack the President. Ignorant allegations are so much more entertaining. I hope the Deputy AG has a replacement suggestion.
@kitt: Firing someone while he’s investigating you and your cohorts. Possibly taping your WH conversations without permission. Lying to your V.P., your press secretary and the American people.
Does DT actually wanna go the way of Tricky Dick? He’s already extremely unpopular–does he like living on the edge?
@Richard Wheeler:
you read that entire post and totally missed the message? Did you get your tuition refund yet? You should continue to insist because apparently they didn’t even teach you basic reading comprehension. The message was Tricky Dick wanted the AG to fire someone that was investigating Watergate. The AG refused. In this case, the AAG wanted to fire someone that worked for him, his boss gave him permission and carried out the act. Now tell us again. How is that similar? Just for the record, in Washington, DC only one party needs to consent to recording a conversation. So even if the conversation were recorded, it is entirely legal.
Do you need some help wording that tuition refund request?