,
6 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
I was sure that I'd turn on my TV and see CNN analysts making the same basic points about the McCabe-Rosenstein conversations that I have—that they were fully justified under the Constitution, SOPs, and the facts on the ground. Instead, I heard Chris Cilizza calling them "crazy."
If Chris Cilizza can't run through a legal and investigative hypothetical to determine which investigative and NatSec options officials must talk through in an unexpected emergency, maybe he shouldn't be on television implicitly enabling Trump's charges of "treason" and a "coup."
This isn't a game. When Trump publicly alleged "treason" and a "coup" at the FBI and DOJ, the correct response was a thorough vetting of the facts as I offered here on Twitter (with the expertise to speak credibly on the issue). I don't know what the heck Chris Cilizza was doing.
I have a) *consistently* said that nothing Trump has done could be charged as treason, and b) *never* referenced a "coup" except for one time: when a report came out in major media that top White House officials discussing "tackling" Trump if he sought a frivolous nuclear launch.
So for the President of the U.S. to discuss *both* "treason" *and* a "coup" in reference to law enforcement officials discussing in a *responsible, thorough, and deliberative way* ongoing criminal and counterintelligence investigations, *and* accuse *SNL* of collusion—it's scary.
The media *has* to register how abnormal, dangerous, and legitimately scary Trump's behavior is, and frankly having Chris Cilizza on to talk about it signals quite clearly that media is treating this as a "media" issue—how Trump frames the news—even though it's clearly much more.
