[Cboldt]

-- There were calls for Sessions to recuse himself for days before his confirmation hearing, from Dims and Republicans. --

I'm reading transcripts of Sessions' confirmation hearings.

The following subjects are raised as points of recusal on January 10, 2017:

• Grassley: investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, relating to her handling of sensitive e- mails and regarding certain actions of the Clinton Foundation.
• Blumenthal: from voting on your own nomination and the nominations of other cabinet secretaries?
• Blumenthal: cases involves Deutsche Bank. The president of the United States owes the Deutsche Bank several hundreds of millions of dollars, it's currently under ongoing investigation.
• Durbin: What if, hypothetical, same as Hillary Clinton, we are dealing with an investigation that involves the Trump campaign or anyone in the Trump campaign, would you recuse yourself as attorney general from that prosecution?

Sessions' answer:

My response to the -- my recusal issue was because I'd made public comments about it that could be construed as having an opinion on the final judgment that would have to be rendered. I don't think I made any comments on this issue that go to that, but I would review it and try to do the right thing as to whether or not it should stay within the jurisdiction of the attorney general or not.

DURBIN: It would strike me that this is an obvious case for a special prosecutor if it involves a campaign leading to a candidate who selected you as the attorney general. Wouldn't an abundance of caution suggest that you wouldn't want any questions raised about your integrity in that type of prosecution?

SESSIONS: Senator Durbin, I think it would be incumbent upon anybody who's holding the office of attorney general at that time to carefully think his way through that, to seek the advice and to follow the normal or appropriate special prosecutor standards. And so I would intend to do that. But I have not expressed an opinion on the merits of those issues, to my knowledge.

The second day, January 11, Sessions did not appear but the issue of recusal came up.

• Durbin: I asked him pointedly whether he would recuse himself if there were any accusations against the president-elect once he becomes president or other people involved in the Trump campaign, and he basically answered me that he was going to take this on a case-by-case basis.

That's it, for the hearings. There is no suggestion that the Trump campaign was under investigation, only the hypothetical from Durbin.

Sessions "hung in there" too, and recused only after reviewing the regulations, which are on point in relation to his history with the Trump campaign.

-- it was a failure of the Trump administration that a chief of staff, or WH counsel, or Trump or Sessions did not call key people together to discuss the issue and make a team decision of what Sessions should do. --

As to investigations into the Trump campaign, it wasn't an issue. It could have been, hypothetically, and in hindsight it is clear that Durbin was in collusion on a planned investigation.

If they'd had foresight of this, there were a few avenues to investigate. Did the rule call for recusal? If so, do we flout them, or follow them? If we follow them, who do I nominate? (can't be somebody from within the campaign).

All water over the dam. At this point, Trump blames Sessions, and hasn't gotten over it.

[Will88]

See my #143. I think I was recalling the constant calls for Sessions to recuse during several weeks before he actually did recuse on March 2. I’d remembered some of it incorrectly as having taken place before the confirmation hearing when most of it was actually after that.

Still, there were several weeks when it was in the news before Sessions announced his recusal. Trump and everyone else had plenty of time to discuss Sessions’ eventual decision with him before it was announced.