Political theorist and creator of Dilbert Scott Adams weighs in on the Trump-Sessions kerfuffle. Adams said Trump had three paths to choose from to get to Sessions but decided to go on the offense. He said Trump has been getting kicked around but with the hire of communications director Anthony Scaramucci, it is clear he wants to go on offense where nobody is safe, even if you're on his team.



"The big shift this week, the last several days, especially with Scaramucci, is that the president has gone on offense," Adams said Thursday on the Twitter app Periscope. "He's sort of been on defense on all of this Russia stuff and he's been getting kicked around a little bit and it's just obvious that he's decided to go on offense. Part of that offense is that nobody's safe. It doesn't matter if you're on his team or off his team. If you're in the way, you're in the way now."



"And Sessions was in the way," he added.



"The theory of persuasion would say that in this situation he's going to try to please his boss a little bit more. And probably this was the only way this was going to happen," Adams deduced.



Adams said Trump had to go public because if he attempted to deal with Sessions in private the Attorney General could just roll him off. Trump's strategy has put the spotlight on Sessions and has delivered transparency to the American public, Adams said.



"He went to the public. Do you remember the public? That's us. We're their bosses. President Trump works for us and the Attorney General, he works for us too," Adams told viewers.



"He took it to the public," Adams said. "He just put it out there. He said here's how I feel, full disclosure. I'm paraphrasing, obviously. But do you think the president held anything back? Do you want some transparency, there's some transparency for you. There's more transparency than he wanted."



"He said here's my beef with the Attorney General. And the public is sort of sorting it out for him if you think about because Jeff Sessions now has tens of millions of more eyeballs on him looking at him through a different and critical filter than before," he said.



Transcript of Adam's commentary:





SCOTT ADAMS: I'm seeing a lot of criticism about President Trump's treatment of Jeff Sessions. And in the criticism people say, 'Well, why didn't he handle it a different way?'



And so here's the question I am tossing around in my mind. People who are criticizing the president, they probably know that if you talk to Jeff Sessions personally, privately, and said, 'here are my private grievances, that in all likelihood Jeff Sessions would say I totally know what you want but here are the reasons why I recused myself. Here are the reasons why I am looking into these things and not these things and this is the way I am going to do it. So I have the feeling talking to Jeff Sessions privately, either already has happened through channels, in other words; there may have been communication, just not sitting in the same room. But I had a feeling it would have made no difference, and the president probably knew that. Now, people say, oh but he can just fire Jeff Sessions if he doesn't like what he's doing. But almost in the same breath people like Lindsey Graham say if he fires Sessions there will be hell to pay and all of the government could come down.



So, here's why his critics know he couldn't talk to him in person and really expect anything to change because it wasn't as if Jeff Sessions didn't know what President Trump wanted. There was no lack of knowledge of about what was good for the president or bad for the president. There was no lack of knowledge of what the president's priorities were, and things he cared about, what things were affecting his presidency. There was nothing to tell him. Apparently, Jeff Sessions had decided the way he's playing it makes sense based on -- here, I'll be as charitable as I can -- Jeff Sessions knows more about all of these situations than we do. So probably he thought about it, he looked at all the facts, and he said I'm handling it exactly the way I've decided to handle them and this is the best way.



So, he couldn't talk to him in person and expect anything to change. He couldn't fire him because the government would just go into revolt and summon the people. But he still needed him to do something differently. So what was his third option other than surrender? If there is one thing that you notice this week, there's one big shift, and I don't know if all of you saw it.



The big shift this week, the last several days, especially with Scaramucci, is that the president has gone on offense. He's sort of been on defense on all of this Russia stuff and he's been getting kicked around a little bit and it's just obvious that he's decided to go on offense. Part of that offense is that nobody's safe. It doesn't matter if you're on his team or off his team. If you're in the way, you're in the way now. And Sessions was in the way. And the two more civilized ways, you know, paths to handle this really couldn't have worked. You can't really fire him and get away with it, the politics wouldn't have worked. And he probably would get nothing if he talked to him in person privately because Jeff presumably already knows what the president wants and if not giving it to him he's got his reasons. They're not going to change just because they're in the same room. So he did the one and only thing he could do to influence things and not just surrender and roll over: he went to the public. Do you remember the public? That's us. We're their bosses. President Trump works for us and the Attorney General, he works for us too.



So he couldn't get things done under the normal process, the normal chain of command. So what'd he do? He escalated it to their boss. Us. He took it to the public. He just put it out there. He said here's how I feel, full disclosure. I'm paraphrasing, obviously. But do you think the president held anything back? Do you want some transparency, there's some transparency for you. There's more transparency than he wanted.



Now, will Jeff Sessions will act differently? Here's the key question. Will Jeff Sessions now act differently because of the public humiliation that has been laid upon him? Probably yes. Maybe not in giant ways. But probably yes. He already has, some say. And there's some evidence of that. But we don't know if that's why he's doing what he's doing. But the theory of persuasion would say that in this situation he's going to try to please his boss a little bit more. And probably this was the only way this was going to happen.



So, if you look at this through all the traditional buttoned-down pearl-clutching ways that we look at these things, President Trump had three paths, if you include surrender. If you assume that's a path, just surrender. Just roll over and let whatever's going to happen happen. Or he could have talked to Sessions privately which could have changed absolutely nothing because Sessions already knew what he wanted.



Just summarizing. The president has three paths. He could surrender, give up, and let whatever happens happens, which seemed unlikely. He could talk to Jeff Sessions privately, which wouldn't change anything because Jeff Sessions clearly already knew what the president wanted him to do. Or he could fire Jeff Sessions which even Lindsey Graham who is on the president's side says would be suicide and your whole administration would come tumbling down. So there were no paths to the president inside the box. If he stayed inside the box, played by the rules, did things the way you're supposed to do them. Did them the old way, the traditional way, the suit and tie way, he would have had no paths to success. So he got out of the box. He bumped it upstairs to his bosses, which is the public, and he said here's my beef with the Attorney General. And the public is sort of sorting it out for him if you think about because Jeff Sessions now has tens of millions of more eyeballs on him looking at him through a different and critical filter than before.