Seth Abramson @SethAbramson Attorney. Professor @UofNH. Columnist @Newsweek. NYT bestselling author. Proof of Conspiracy @StMartinsPress: tinyurl.com/y484j4ku. Analyses @BBC. Views mine. Apr. 11, 2019 2 min read

So @mkhammer *knows* the Attorney General specifically referenced *unauthorized* spying before Congress, which is why he had to walk it back and say he had no evidence of that. So what does she do? Goes on CNN and (smugly!) says the AG was talking about *authorized* surveillance.

1/ I'm sick of supposedly reasonable moderate conservatives telling untruths with smug condescension as though they're the only reasonable ones in the room. Senator Kennedy (R-LA) said Clinton's campaign was investigated. No. Hamm says the AG meant *authorized* surveillance. No.

2/ Mike Rogers says Trump saying "I love Wikileaks" 100 times in October 2016 was just "political rhetoric" and he can honestly now say he has no interest in and nothing to do with WikiLeaks (despite Trump Jr., Stone, and other inner circle Trumpers being in touch with them). No.

3/ Americans see what these supposedly moderate dissemblers are doing, which is making sure they maintain a professional, cultural capital-heavy place in the Republican Party even after it's become a cult. Zero points for honesty and zero points for integrity to be awarded here.

4/ What @mkhammer could do, as could anyone who makes a mistake on TV, is go on social media and say, I made a mistake and said the Attorney General was talking about authorized surveillance when he was talking about unauthorized surveillance. And that apology should be accepted.

5/ For instance, I once predicted Rod Rosenstein would recuse himself from the obstruction case against Trump because he was/is one of its chief witnesses, so DOJ regulations required his recusal. In fact Rosenstein violated DOJ regs and didn't recuse. I'm sorry I got that wrong.

6/ Another example: when Trump nominated Barr to be AG, I said that Barr appeared to be a better option for the rule of law then the alternatives Trump would probably give us, so I gave him the benefit of the doubt as to whether he'd be honorable. Clearly, I was wrong to do that.

7/ I said Rosenstein's Mueller appointment letter would be taken by Mueller as indicating he could investigate all evidence of collusive activity between Trump and Russia, not just conspiracy with the GRU or IRA. Mueller apparently saw his purview differently. I read *him* wrong.

8/ There may yet be opportunities for Hamm to say that some part of what she said today on CNN was actually correct. As for me, it's entirely possible that one or more of the 20 pending Trump investigations are Mueller referrals looking at what I thought *Mueller* was looking at.


You can follow @SethAbramson.



Bookmark

____
Tip: mention @threader_app on a Twitter thread with the keyword “compile” to get a link to it.

Enjoy Threader? Become member.