Preet Bharara was on CNN and Trump’s lawyer went after him on his tweeter. He especially went after Bharara’s insinuation that he was improperly fired:
Preet Bharara is a resistance Democrat. He's fantasizing. And ABC had an obligation to make it clear that Bharara has an axe to grind.
— Mark Corallo (@MarkCorallo1) June 11, 2017
All US Attorneys work for and at the pleasure of POTUS. There is nothing abnormal with the executive speaking directly with his employees.
— Mark Corallo (@MarkCorallo1) June 11, 2017
I'd Preet refused to accept the President's call, he deserved to be fired.
— Mark Corallo (@MarkCorallo1) June 11, 2017
OK, but does anyone who isn’t paid to pretend they believe it actually believe that this is the reason Bharara was fired?
Here’s what Bharara said about that – he said hearing about Comey’s phone calls with Trump sounded like his own phone calls with Trump when he got fired.
Former US Attorney @PreetBharara recounts “very unusual” calls with Trump: “There has to be some kind of arms-length relationship.” pic.twitter.com/dkVrYEOMqh
— This Week (@ThisWeekABC) June 11, 2017
He adds that he just doesn’t know if he was fired because the was investigating Trump:
.@PreetBharara says he's "not drawing a connection" between being fired by Trump and his jurisdiction. "Anything is possible." #ThisWeek pic.twitter.com/COL1LQtoj2
— This Week (@ThisWeekABC) June 11, 2017
But that wasn’t the most important part of his appearance. Bharara also compares Trump’s accusation against Hillary, concluding that his comments to Comey are “a big deal, and can’t be excused by simply being a novice.”
.@PreetBharara: Trump’s alleged comments to Comey “is a big deal, and can’t be excused by simply being a novice.” https://t.co/VFx4desZYS pic.twitter.com/ssuoD5eCHi
— This Week (@ThisWeekABC) June 11, 2017
He says that there’s evidence to begin a case of obstruction against Trump, but cautions that no one knows whether it’s true or not right now.
.@PreetBharara to @GStephanopoulos: “There’s absolutely evidence to begin a case” for obstruction of justice against Pres. Trump. #ThisWeek pic.twitter.com/LLE3v574ai
— This Week (@ThisWeekABC) June 11, 2017
He tries to shoot down the common argument among Trump defenders like Alan Dershowitz, that the fact that Trump could fire the FBI Director means he’s completely exonerated when he does it.
I find it curious that Corallo goes after the incidental part of Bhareera’s guest appearance, and not the substantive one, especially since Bhareera appears to resist being made a martyr the way Democrats are trying to make him…