[FreeReign]

CHAIRMAN GRASSLEY:

I THINK I KNOW WHY YOU ARE PROBABLY RELUCTANT TO GO INTO SOME DETAIL ON THAT, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND YOU THAT DEPUTY ATTORNEY ROSENSTEIN DIRECTLY SUPERVISED A CRIMINAL CASE WHEN HE WAS U.S. ATTORNEY IN MARYLAND.

I DO NOT THINK IT WOULD BE PROPER FOR HIM TO SUPERVISE A REVIEW OF HIS OWN CONDUCT, DO YOU?

A.G. SESSIONS:

IT WOULD BE HIS DECISION.

It's interesting as seen in the above response by Sessions, that he says that a recusal (in this case Rosenstein) is something that is one's own choice.

Contrast that to what Sessions said about his own recusal, that he had no choice.

Sessions: I recused myself not because of any asserted wrongdoing on my part during the campaign, but because a Department of Justice regulation, 28 CFR 45.2, required it....That regulation states, in effect, that department employees should not participate in investigations of a campaign if they have served as a campaign advisor.

Link

[RummyChick]

Seems to me his is saying he is recused. Its not his decision

[Golden Eagle]

Sessions: I recused myself not because of any asserted wrongdoing on my part during the campaign, but because a Department of Justice regulation, 28 CFR 45.2, required it....That regulation states, in effect, that department employees should not participate in investigations of a campaign if they have served as a campaign advisor.

More good links from you, thanks. When I first saw Sessions state this, and I have seen most if not all of his his statements before Congress live, I begrudgingly admitted there may be precedent for his recusal from matters related TO THE CAMPAIGN, just as he said above. Now, his recusals seem to have expanded to anything to do with Clintons, which the regulation he cited does not require.

Based on what we've seen, Sessions is essentially AWOL from his responsibilities as AG. And the power seems to have been delegated to Rosenstein, who has a questionable history of possibly not reporting Uranium One bribery etc up the chain when it was being debated by Congress/CFIUS etc. And according to Nunes, the DoJ has still been trying to suppress the evidence of possible wrongdoing to their very own oversight committee. Right now Nunes and Trump have my ear, not people in the DoJ or glory hounds on twitter.

[jjotto]

The cases are not the same. The cited CFR does explicitly state “a close identification with an elected official, [or] a candidate (whether or not successful)” as a reason for recusal.

A recusal is, by definition, self-actuated. Someone removed from a case by an outside power is not an example of recusal.

[Electric Graffiti]

“Contrast that to what Sessions said about his own recusal, that he had no choice.”

Good catch.