“President Trump has actually said “I’m very disappointed” in Sessions. And just for the record McConnell has said publicly that if he’s fired the Senate will not take up the nomination of a replacement AG.”
I’ve heard both those arguments many times, but I’m not even disputing that. Let’s say Trump is dissapointed in his AG. Let’s say McConnel wouldn’t take up the nomination of a replacement AG.
What I disagree with is the significance. What I disagree with is the extent of the damage Sessions has done to Trump’s presidency. What I disagree with is the presumption that with a different AG there would have been no witch hunt at all, or that a bunch of top Democrat crooks would be rotting in jail or swinging on a rope.
People are dissapointed the swamp creatures are still out there and there’s this relentless witch hunt that Trump can’t shake off. They want someone to blame so they blame Jeff Sessions.
All I’m saying is that nobody knows what would have happened differently with a different AG. Nobody knows whether a forceful AG and DOJ, like Obama’s would have gotten the desired results. For all we know it could have made it a lot worse A.K.A. Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre. That’s what the deep state wanted Trump/Sessions to do - clearly Trump has chosen a more passive approach and Jeff Sessions is the poster child for that approach. Blame him if you want, but the jury is still out regarding a) whether passivity might turn out to be the smart play, and b) whether the directive to take a more passive approach came right from the top.
“All I’m saying is that nobody knows what would have happened differently with a different AG.”
I’m saying it’s high time we find out.
L