Citing Recusal, Trump Says He Wouldn’t Have Hired Sessions

The Clintons do need to be exposed as criminals, their reputations and political futures ruined. They must be removed from and prevented from ever holding political office again.

However, the administration of one party should not use the incumbancy and authority of their political office to imprison or hang the political leaders of the opposition political party.

Go ahead and laugh if you want, but the federal government’s structure is inherently political, including the justice department. Right now it belongs to a Republican administration.

Who would see it as political retribution? The voters. That’s why attempting to impeach Bill Clinton backfired on Republicans. If the Republican Senate or House had managed to imprison Clinton - the Republican Party would have been destroyed.

I think what the Democrats are doing to Trump right now will backfire on them big league.

(Pinging to LS as we were discussing this above.)

One flaw in your position, as I noted above.

Dems would not hesitate a nano second go to after actual wrongdoing by Rs of a previous administration if they were in power. Look what they’ve done against Trump for NON-EXISTENT wrong doing.

So playing by the queensbury rules, dancing the minuette and saying “Please and thank sir” will get the Rs or more particularly, the Trump administration no where. We need go-for-the-throat pit bull type street fighters, not gentlemanly handshakes to “our good friends across the aisle”.

Being Mr. Nice Guy is a path to ruin. The opposition who have actually committed REAL crimes - whether Dems or disgusting Rs like McInsane - are criminal minded sonsabitches who have absolutely no qualms whatsoever about destroying lives (even sometimes literally), lying, and breaking every crime they can to achieve their nefarious aims.

So playing Nice Guy and “oooh, we can’t go after the insanely egregrious crimes of the previous administration even though many committed such crimes they would deserve life or even execution for treason, because they would think that we are going on a political witch hunt” is a path of weakness, ruin and destruction of the rule of law - which is the very foundation of our Republic.

In fact just thinking about that makes me sick to my stomach with anger.

And there are many who see this exactly as I do.

Another point comes to mind after re-reading your comment.

Have you ever read what George Washington warned in his Farewell Address about political parties?

Your reasoning - and even more so, our current national situation - are perfect illustrations of why his warning was entirely correct. Copying below:

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

“So playing by the queensbury rules, dancing the minuette and saying “Please and thank sir”...”

I’m not saying that and you know it.

I’m saying Mueller’s hiring of anti-Trump investigators and then leaking that he’s going to expand into Trump family finances smells like a trap.

They are trying to bait him into getting angry and defensive and firing these people like Nixon. I think he’s way too smart to take the bait and more likely is setting a trap for them.

I too would be glad to hear Larry’s opinion

I know what you meant - and I do get your point if you are saying we shouldn’t avoid confrontation out of fear of what people will say.

I agree with that. We need to fight for what we believe in, not to be popular.

I’m slicing the orange a different way - my point was that stating one’s principles openly and directly, and charging down the middle is a good way to get caught in an ambush.

Trump supporters want blood, they want to see some criminals get locked up. I do too, and I’m sure Trump does. But the enemy also knows this. They would like to use this knowledge to provoke Trump to anger in hopes he will do something that would work to their advantage.

I’m pretty sure that “something” they are trying to provoke him into is the firing of Mueller and gang. They think that after firing Comey, if they can bait him into firing Meuller too, they will be able to make the case with the public that he is in fact obstructing the investigation.

Trump is way too smart to fall for such an obvious trap. So he won’t charge headlong into battle - instead he’ll work some strategy of his own. That doesn’t mean he’s dancing the minuet - or playing by Queensbury rules. Far from it...

He always winds up holding all the cards - probably springing a trap on them as we speak. There was something funny about this supposed rift between Trump and Sessions - probably part of a set up or a honey pot strategy.

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.