And I think he should be in a cabinet.
Here's one -
Posted on 07/25/2017 5:19:18 AM PDT by Pinkbell
(Full title not posted because contains profanity)
“If he can get treated that way, what about the rest of us?” one of the President’s Cabinet secretaries asked me with both shock and anger in his voice. I am told reports about Rex Tillerson (not who I talked to) are legitimate. He is quite perturbed with the President’s treatment of his Attorney General and is ready to quit. Secretary Mattis (also not who I talked to) is also bothered by it. They and other Cabinet members are already frustrated by the slow pace of appointments for their staffs, the vetoes over qualified people for not being sufficiently pro-Trump, and the Senate confirmation pace.
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.
Jeff Sessions was with President Trump early. He was the earliest member of the Senate and the earliest politician of his prominence to come out in support of President Trump. He had his back repeatedly, defended the absurd, and is in the mess he is in because he took on so many duties within the campaign to help the President when few even thought Trump could win.
(Excerpt) Read more at theresurgent.com ...
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 -
I agree. The whole issue with Sessions is about his performance in office, or rather lack thereof. What is he doing? The recusal was only the first indication that he wasn’t up to the job and he’s done nothing since then to make me reconsider that assessment.
This is what’s wrong with the ENTIRE DC CULTURE, they all want to be treated a certain way.
JEFF SESSIONS is a great conservative, but is also a “NICE GUY”, and as such, is not SUITED for the job of AG. PERIOD!
JEFF SESSIONS has never had a BOSS to report to. He blew it when he didn’t consult with Trump (his boss) about him recusing himself from Russia probe in AG dept. ESPECIALLY after FBI told Trump he was NOT under investigation.
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.
Sessions support for government theft (RICO) alone should be enough to replace him.
BTW, the remaining cabinet weenies need reminding that they work for the executive branch - the President - and serve at the President’s pleasure.
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?
That being said, two points. One is that Senator Sessions is necessary to this administration. What would happen if he stepped down? No one short of Loretta Lynch would get confirmed. You'd have swampthings run amuck at Justice. The other point is that comment about appointments being too slow, because it's tough to find loyal people in the DC swamp. My answer.....why haven't more Deplorables, ordinary people with the resumes from across the country who aren't part of the political swamp, been appointed?
I'm not trying to be negative here, just realistic. The only way to turn things around is to appoint little folks who loyally donated, attended rallies, followed the campaign and know the Deplorable Agenda. People who come to DC without any connections.
Who is the anonymous source who is supposedly leaking this sh**.
Hillary, Ryan, Jeb and the CNN staff?
Did you single out anyone in your command? When someone underperformed, did you take them in for a one on one or embarrass him in front of the whole unit? If he isn’t pleased with something sessions does he should bring him in or fire him. Publicly tweeting out random thoughts is not the way to treat your hires. Loyalty goes both ways. He’s going to have trouble bringing in good people if his idea of management is to send out public tweets when he is unhappy. /flame suit on
:: Trump is not throwing Sessions under the bus for lack of loyalty but poor performance. ::
Possible strategy vis-a-vis Sessions’ possible ouster and Trump’s recent tweets: Making the opposition “show their hand” early; making the lower ranking members of the Clinton Cabal come out of the woodwork to avoid a thorough investigation?
Some of these clowns probably think we have a ministerial type government, say, like the Brits. We don’t.
Some speak of Trump wanting loyalty. What does that mean? Does it mean I want you to vote for me? Does it mean I want you to say I am a great guy and leader? Or does it mean, this is my program, this is what I ran on, this is what I want done. If it is the latter and they cannot abide about that, they need to be gone.
Someone yesterday said he would be happy if Trump fired his entire staff and picked from members of this site. I agree, great idea.
ANYONE who thought they could get a position and just "coast" apparently didn't have the same takeaway on President Trump's managerial style that I got from watching "The Apprentice".
Draining the Swamp [Cesspool] requires a continuous concerted effort, and if you're not up to it then you shouldn't be in The Cabinet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.