For most of the day, US media has covered Sessions' attempt—likely at Trump's direction or encouragement—to fire Deputy FBI Director McCabe *without* noting that McCabe is a *major* witness in the Obstruction case against Trump (an impeachable offense).
*That's* the story here.
*That's* the story here.
2/ The idea DOJ and/or Trump would try to punish one of the nation's foremost whistleblowers at a time he's a key witness against the President of the United States in a federal felony the president could be impeached for—I don't know why *that* wasn't the headline from the jump.
3/ @AshaRangappa_ (CNN) notes Sessions' recusal from matters relating to the election (not just Russia) should've precluded him from seeking to punish a man (McCabe) who was involved in the Clinton email investigation. Sessions said he'd stay away from Clinton-related matters.
4/ But Dana Bash (CNN) is wrong to say that news of last year's Comey interview with Mueller, and last week's Mueller-Sessions interview, suggests Mueller is "getting toward the end of his investigation." There's no reason to think that. Sadly, we have a long way to go with this.
5/ The media is over-focusing on the small number of witnesses it knows to be involved in the Obstruction investigation. On the Russia side of things, there are *hundreds* of witnesses—and we've no idea how many of them (or how many of the docs he needs) Mueller has seen already.
6/ Having said all this, Bob Mueller *may* be close to making a final determination on *one* (just one) of his *many* lines of inquiry involving Trump and Russia—that being a potential Obstruction charge against the president. Media *must* start making this important distinction.
