Hey, I am not a good person to have on the air. I am glad the screener did not allow me on the air.
But I stand by my outrage that I don’t like to hear Mark repeat the FBI’s words that the bribes were “gifts. They were not!
I think what you might be saying is:
The actual goal of Sessions Inaction is to deliberately EXASPERATE the Trump-voting public:
That Trump (somehow) BENEFITS from this public expasperation.
You are saying this..?
Mark Levin has - live, on air - called for Sessions to resign. He said, he ended a 30 yr friendship with Sessions by calling on him to resign. That he doesn’t ask Trump to fire Sessions, rather, he tells Sessions he needs to resign, is very telling.
He obviously does not think it would be a good plan for Trump to fire Sessions. Seemingly agreeing with Mark’s view, Trump has made it clear he is disgusted with Sessions and would not have appointed him if he had known what the man would do, and not do.
That he does not fire him, tells me plenty.
Trump isn’t afraid to fire Sessions. He just doesn’t think it’s a smart move. Maybe Trump has a strategy going forward that will negate/overcome the terrible drag Sessions is on all things DOJ...
Look, you're right to be angry and want to respond, but you needed a better argument.
Mark is old enough to remember the "gifts" scandal that was the impetus of Nixon's "CHECKERS SPEECH" ( no, Veep Nixon did NOT take anything other than a puppy, that his little girls then named "Checkers", but any others HAD indeed taken all kinds of "gifts", including fur coats for their wives, which led Nixon to say that Pat had no fur coats, just a good GOP cloth coat! ) and if he can't remember that, at the least he should have read about it!
And if YOU had known about this, you could have used it as a retort to Mark. After all, they were called "GIFTS" back then, not "bribes"; though that IS what they were! :-)