Posted on 07/27/2017 10:26:31 AM PDT by Oshkalaboomboom
Okay, you’ve had your taste of your projection, now let me have mine.
You have a subordinate who locks himself in a bunker to prevent himself from becoming a target for the enemy instead of his commanding officer.
What’s the punishment for that?
You can’t “lead” someone who refuses to “follow.”
Really? How so?
Dear Ken Starr,
1. It is because of your obsession with revealing the sexcapades that have forever soiled The Oval Office, that you have legally substantiated that “oral sex” is “not sex”.
2. As of this morning, “Twitter” is losing membership. Think of the archival insanity of retrieving any or all of these ‘tweets’ under ‘Presidential communications’, if a commercial communications company goes belly up?!?!?
Ken Starr did a terrible job, and only had a case when he was handed the blue dress on a silver platter. In spite of being a milquetoast, soft GOPe whipped puppy who didn’t really want to find anything, he became the focus of a brutal, malicious and false attack from the Clinton apologists, who now say that Mueller is above reproach. I know this article is about Sessions, but the two issues are related.
LOL.........right!!
UCMJ and in his case it’s called fire him. You don’t take it public. That’s tasteless, it’s tawdry and quite frankly unprofessional. You’d work for someone who conducted themselves in that manner?
My thoughts exactly. Incoming!!!
Ken Starr - you had your chance to put the Clintons away and you didn’t - so shut up and go home !
Seems like this letter should have written a few times during the last administration.
These people should get lost.
It’s a new kind of leader in charge.
He’s telling us what he thinks. Sessions has made the president’s life difficult, so why not let him know it in public.
Did you watch the press conference?
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Hah
My, that headline sure was polite for a change.
I don’t remember Ken Starr’s outrage when Loretta Lynch abused her power reminiscent of a police state.
Trump once more is playing 4D chess with the idiot press and Democrats. He now has them rallying around backing Sessions. If Sessions finally goes after the corrupt DNC and the Clintons, they will be completely paralyzed doing back flips to tell Trump he should get rid of Sessions.
Starr’s mission was to appear to be going after The Rapist. He accomplished this by exposing lots of filth. But he was in the bag for the Uniparty and the BushClinton Crime Family, and was rewarded.
Because of Starr I hope Baylor loses every game from now on. He is pure slime.
I’m not saying my analogy was perfect, but neither was yours.
Political appointees serve at the pleasure of the President. Running for cover when he needs you is NOT how one ingratiates himself in such a job.
You act like this is a position at ABC widget corp. It’s not.
No. But implying it my responsibility to verify YOUR claim is out of line in the first place.
That isn’t my point and yes you are correct he does serve at his pleasure as do I at my present employer. That doesn’t mean it’s ok that my present employer air its disappointment with me publicly just because it’s “cool” and the “hip” thing to do which is tweet. Fire him I’d have no issue with but what he did is ridiculous and passive aggressive
No, he does NOT serve “as you do” at the pleasure of your employer. And I can’t prevent you from trying to identify the situation that way as you seem to be determined to do so.
However, let’s make your analogy a bit more realistic. At best, the relationship between Trump and Sessions is more that of a CEO that has appointed a senior VP to run a particular division, NOT a wage-enslaved employee of the ABC widget corp, protected by the myriad of legal regulations that have become internalized by the corporate culture. At that level of power, not “employment,” there are literally no rules. And anyone who doesn’t understand that doesn’t belong there.
If you want to take the measure of a man, why hasn’t Sessions resigned in outrage over such public treatment by his “boss?” And I don’t want you to treat that as a rhetorical question.
Really...why does Sessions neither quit, NOR modify his recusal as I understand is within his purview? Why did he not even discuss the action with his “boss” before taking that very controversial public action? And no, I don’t have the answers to those questions, but I think YOU SHOULD before criticizing the President on how he “treats” crucial appointees in his administration.
Certainly, after seeing what his “subordinates” have done with his recusal, Sessions would been eminently justified in withdrawing his recusal and rolling some heads in defense of not just his boss, but the traditional American understanding of what is meant by JUSTICE.
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.