TRUST SESSIONS is merely a refrain of that sentiment.
But numbskulls will not allow for changes in perspective, thought processes, decision deliberations, etc.
______________________________________________________
And then there’s respectable FReeQs, who don’t have any of the negative attributes you describe, who have reason to believe that Sessions served his role vigorously and honorably, that the Q+ praise and gratitude in #2452 is sincere, and that POTUS never risked the fate of the world, let alone republic, on a hunch to “see what he (Sessions) could do” in that critical position.
You are territorial.
Sessions is a good man deserving of respect. The one valid criticism of him that applies to most Senators is that he goes along to get along. For example, he voted for the secret Iran nuclear deal, not willingly, but still, he went with it in the end.
He’s just not the AG that POTUS wanted as said by POTUS himself since 2017. If you have an issue with it, take it up with prior statements of POTUS. I advise you to drop it.
I am only defending Q’s long ago drop to “Trust Sessions”, that it was situational and not written in stone. I have done that for many months. It’s an attack against the legitimacy of Q. I see it as a situation embedded in context, the context of the time and the deliberations of what to do with an AG that recused himself and allowed a Dem prosecutor to enter a backdoor to the DOJ.
If Q is going to be attacked over a long ago made statement to “Trust Sessions”, the attackers are going to be confronted with the question “what about POTUS?” because POTUS allowed him to stay on despite saying on numerous occasions how unhappy he was with Sessions.
Attackers of Q can’t have it both ways. Attacking Q is no different than attacking POTUS. Both Q and POTUS have the same positions and perspectives.