ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT, Sessions did not say “not enough evidence of wrongdoing “ Nor did he say “not enough evidence for anything. “ his exact words were “looks like is not enough basis to appoint a special counsel.” A DOJ spokesman and Sessions himself later specified that a certain protocol must be followed before naming a special counsel. Sessions said “ I did not mean to suggest I was talking a side one way or the other on that subject.” Sure looks like he is considering a special counsel don’t you agree ?
I believe that he got what he wanted in two headlines today:
1) He wanted to make it clear that he thinks Judge Moore is guilty of a sexual crime.
2) He wanted to make it clear that he is not on Trump’s side, that he will not do Trump’s bidding on Hillary.
Have you ever seen a modern day Republican Senator act any other way?
On what basis did he appoint a SC to investigate Trump's supposed Russian collusion?
A DOJ spokesman and Sessions himself later specified that a certain protocol must be followed before naming a special counsel.
Where can I see this protocol as it was applied to the supposed Trump/Russian collusion and the appointment of Mueller?
Sure looks like he is considering a special counsel don’t you agree ?
Nope. It looks like he's considering recusing himself -- again.
I answered my own question. See: Attorney General’s Special Counsel Regulations
The regulations set forth (28 C.F.R. 600.1) a three-part analysis for determining whether to appoint a special counsel. First, the Attorney General must determine that “criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted.” Then, he or she must determine whether investigation or prosecution of the “person or matter” by a U.S. Attorney’s Office or a Justice Department litigating division would present either “a conflict of interest for the Department” or “other extraordinary circumstances.” Finally, a further question is to be asked, namely, whether “it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.
First, is an investigation of SoS Hitlery and the Clinton Foundation warranted?
The answer to this question is self-evident.
Second, what conflicts of interest does AG Sessions and/or the DOJ have related to investigating Hitlery and the Clinton Foundation?
None of which I'm aware. Unless of course Sessions and the entire DOJ are completely compromised. (read: corrupt)
Third, Is it in the public's interest to investigate Hitlery and the Clinton Foundation?
The answer to this question is, also, self-evident.
So, if there are any other protocols of which I'm unaware, please post links.
Thank you for the clarification, that is not what I’d read.