And I think he should be in a cabinet.
Here's one -
That said, he does have connections within the Republican Party, so it's not unfeasible to me that he talked to a Cabinet Secretary. We know it wasn't Mattis, Tillerson, or Sessions (obviously), so go from there. I'm going to address the following first:
In fact, the Cabinet secretary I talked to raised the issue of the White House staff vetoes over loyalty, blasting the White House staff for blocking qualified people of like mind because they were not pro-Trump and now the President is ready to fire the most loyal of all the Cabinet members. “It’s more of a clusterf**k than you even know,” the Cabinet secretary tells me about dealing with the White House on policy. It is not just Tillerson ready to bail.
Did this person know Erick would be leaking their convo? This only hurts the Administration. That said, Trump has every right to ensure that people that are hired are Pro-Trump. He's under assault by the media, Democrats/the left, the intelligence agencies and even some in his own party. He is dealing with leaks all the time including from within his own Administration. He ran on a certain agenda he wants to deliver on, and with so many out to get him, it makes sense he doesn't want Never Trumpers in the Administration. There is no reason why these Cabinet people can't pick people who supported Trump or at the very least are supportive of the agenda he ran on. He doesn't need people undermining his agenda or throwing him under the bus to the media like with what has happened with some on his staff and these leaks so far. He needs people that will fight with him, not against him.
And that is the point of the Secretary with whom I spoke. Not every one of the Cabinet members supported Trump. Some of them even were put off by him through the general election. And of those who were with him loyally, none was more loyal than Sessions. It’s a good point. If this could happen to the most loyal of all the Cabinet members, God help the rest of them.
If they were put off by him, they should not have taken the job. This is why I said at the time that Trump should have picked people who were with him throughout the campaign, people who were loyal.
As far as Sessions, look, I would like to see them looking into the Clintons, into the leaks, into Ukraine's election meddling, etc. I know he didn't think Sessions should have recused himself and would have picked someone else if he had known he would, although I would argue that Sessions had no choice in my opinion as liberals would never trust the results of an investigation he was head of because he was a part of the campaign. I understand his frustration 100%, though.
The above said, Sessions is a fine man, a man who backed Trump when few else would. He stood by him during the campaign when many did not, and I can't recall him ever throwing Trump under the bus. He is a good, kind, conservative man who does agree with Trump on securing our borders. He is such a kind man, that I was skeptical of the pick from the beginning - thinking Trump needed a pitbull like Giuliani.
The reality is that he has chosen Sessions, and I hate to see Sessions out in the cold. I hate to see Sessions lose everything for supporting Trump. I hope that Sessions can look into the above things. I don't believe for a second that Trump would ever be able to get anyone he wanted through confirmation now anyway. Anyone who would look into what Trump wants wouldn't get confirmation. The Republicans who voted for Sessions would be angry as many of them really love their former colleague.
I'll end with the following quote from the article which shows the Never Trump bias of Erickson:
Tossing the most loyal of cabinet secretaries because he had to recuse himself on the Russia matter, which itself is a self-inflicted wound by the President and no one else, would send a very strong message to the rest of the Cabinet and many others that the President will not show reciprocal loyalty.
A self-inflicted wound? Absolutely ludicrous. It was only a self-inflicted wound if Trump colluded with Russia to hack the emails. If not, it is a witch hunt.
Session WAS rewarded for his support of Trump during the election, but then he failed to perform.
He recused himself when he shouldn’t have, opening the door for the special counsel, and he has failed to prosecute hilLIARy for known crimes.
James Comey’s recommendation not to prosecute was just that- a recommendation- it is not binding.
The above article is typical of the swamp behavior of the past. Once you’re in the job you hold that job based on good performance, and that is what they should all be worried about.
Trump is not throwing Sessions under the bus for lack of loyalty but poor performance.
Who is the anonymous source who is supposedly leaking this sh**.
If someone on the cabinet real said this to Erickson, then Trump hasn’t demanded enough loyalty for staff appointments and at least one anti-Trumper should be removed.
Of course it’s possible that someone not in the cabinet told Erickson “I think they’re having internal discussions how to speed up appointments” and he heard this.
I didn’t read the article because I don’t give a flying fig about anything Erickson has to say. That being said I do wish the President had just called Sessions in and asked for his resignation.
You work for me you do what I tell you to do. Simple!
And I think he should be in a cabinet.
Here's one -
What Crap.
When I took command of my last unit I said in my acceptance speech “If you are an indispensable man, you just became dispensable.” I further said “Our mission is go to war, if you are not ready to do that don’t let the door hit you in your ass on the way out.”
So Trump is saying as President, “It’s my way or the highway!”. Super, that is how it should be, subject to the Constitution.
Furthermore, they all serve at the pleasure of the President, and this President is famous for two words: “You’re Fired!” Do not doubt him on that.
“It’s more of a clusterf**k than you even know,”
Sounds like our Republican Senate.
If Sessions is such a great man why can’t he do his job?
If Sessions was so loyal to our President then why didn’t he tell President Trump before recusing himself and causing all this trouble?
Anyone else in this administration that doesn’t like it can hit the door as there are many willing to replace these wimps.
Many of these “never trumpers” will be weeded out by 2018 and that includes Senators and Congress critters.
The thing that gets and galls me is that you do not agree with whom you work for, than get another job and quit. You work for the boss. If the boss tells you to do something, if it is not against the law or an illegal order - than you do it. If you do not agree with what the boss wants, quit! What is so hard to understand about that?
So we are to believe that the people leading are upset that a shifty slacker is being called out, so much so they are going to quit on America? I call BS.
Let's break this down, shall we?
Slow pace of appointments: How much swamp can be used to drain the swamp? 'Normal' vetting procedures ignore the DC connectivity, so avoiding placing trust in swamp creatures who will be responsible for removing fellow swamp creatures requires extraordinary vetting on Trump's behalf.
Vetoes on people: Given that Trump is a singular person going up against the whole of the swamp (dem and repub), loyalty (real or perceived) to political figures who are part of the swamp is a debilitating defect in a potential appointment.
Senate confirmation pace: Who the heck believes this is Trump's fault, or that he can constructively do anything about it without squandering whatever political capital he has just to push through his nominees? Whatever happened to the President deserving his choice in people, absent blatant evidence of incompetence or criminality?
The Republicna Senators have been useless to date. What have they done for us to,date? NADA!
I don’t believe this.
Well, how about doing the job you were appointed to Do? That’s why you were hired. Sessions has been doing a good job in most areas, but cracking down on property confiscation without judicial hearings and failure to go after the largest ever criminal syndicate in history are huge failures worthy of getting fired
>> I hate to see Sessions lose everything for supporting Trump <<
As the scorpion might have told the frog, “Live by the sword, die by the sword.”
Erickson is somewhat better than Stephen Hayes from The Weekly Standard but not much. Both are Never Trumpers. Last week Erickson surprised me with a positive tweet but I can’t remember. The thing is Trump has hired seemingly a lot of people that do not line up with him as well as left seemingly a lot in the job that disagree. I prefer some big bang coming that justifies the Sessions distraction but whatever. I hate for a nice man to be hurt but the job needs to be done well. WE will see. Still, Erickson is kind of a know it all and I don’t know if I buy his story wholly.
A) Trump is being subjected to a witch hunt.
B) He is not handling it well.
C) One of his biggest problems is that his staff consists of relatively few of his own. He must still rely on holdovers from the prior administration.
D) Another of his biggest problems is that with the attack on Sessions, we can feel the chill all the way down on the ground. He is making loyal workers less likely and opportunists who do not have his interests at heart more likely to apply. You can’t be part of a big hairy mess as a loyal worker and have that not look bad. On the other hand if you are engaging in sabotage, the bigger and hairier the mess, the more credit you get.
Reading the comments posted about this BS article, it never ceases to amaze me how supposedly well informed people that peruse this blog eat the shiite up that the marxocrat-driven and RINO-enabled media puts out about anything that matters.
This is Eriks wet dream fantasy