Adams said that his theory explained why Trump had retained Jeff Sessions as Attorney General, even while attacking him for failing to pursue charges against Hillary Clinton, as well as members of the “deep state” who had conspired to spy on the Trump campaign.
The goal, he said, was to make sure prosecutors understood there was a “red line” they could not cross — because doing so would trigger Sessions’s replacement with a prosecutor who would take down Trump’s enemies:
Let me ask you this — and I’ve not seen any reporting on this: what would happen if they actually got the president on something serious? Well, between the time the president knew he was going down — and this is hypothetical, let’s imagine that they found something in his business or something that was problematic — he would have a number of months of being in power before he was technically out of office. What would he do? Well, I think he would employ “mutually assured destruction” — not of the world, but of Hillary Clinton. It seems to me he’s setting up the situation to make it clear that if he goes down, he’s going to have plenty of time to take Hillary down. And here’s how he’d do it. Fire Jeff Sessions — and there’s tons of political blowback, but who cares? Because this would be the point where it doesn’t matter anymore. He has nothing to lose. He’s going to fire Jeff Sessions, he’s going to put somebody in — if he can get them approved — who will do nothing but take Hillary down. So it seems to me by threatening Jeff Sessions but not moving on it, he’s sending the clearest message possible that if the deep state takes him out, he’s going to take Hillary out.
Adams later specified that the “red line” for Special Counsel Robert Mueller was any investigation into the broader finances of the Trump Organization, which had nothing to do with the 2016 presidential election or allegations of Russian “collusion.”