I. Is Trump’s pronouncement at CPAC an example of tactical “mis-information”, or a lie, or the hard Truth?
II. Why continue to mention Sessions, in this light, now that he is out of office? (What purpose would it serve, at.this.point?)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OBSERVATION: These are hard questions, and very pertinent.
I resolve them personally, by the following assumptions:
1) Sessions is and always has been loyal to President Trump.
2) Sessions was a bit of a failure as an executive of the huge DoJ. Being an executive is VERY DIFFERENT from being a Legislator or lawyer. Executives must learn to EXECUTE. They make their living making decisive decisions in the GREY AREAS of uncertainty, and thinking strategically. (This means they know their best guesses may be wrong; but they have already thought about next moves in a variety of scenarios.)
3) I think President Trump is used to firing executives who cannot "Execute." (NOTE: "Execution" is partially a LEARNED skill and, ironically, includes willingness to fire people.) But he couldn't fire or even push aside Sessions due to politics. So HE BECAME FRUSTRATED.
IN SUMMARY: Sessions is a white hat; but inadvertently created difficulties and frustrations for POTUS. Hence, POTUS was telling the truth at CPAC about his feelings; but, Q is also correct in saying "Trust Sessions."
FOOTNOTE: If Sessions runs for Senate, no one will campaign harder for him than Donald Trump.
Note my comment just above about Sessions. Also I think that Sessions did what he was tasked to do, and when his part was over, he exited the stage, and not under any cloud of any kind. I think Trump’s apparent dissing him at CPAC was more theater, and I think Q’s mentions of Sessions over the last buncha time supports that. If I am wrong I will admit it. :-)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3731503/posts?page=1566#1566
The possibility of a Decision to recuse was kept from Trump both before and after Sessions took office and then the actual recusal caught him by surprise, cut the president off at the knees and exposed the president on his main Battle Front, ie., saving his presidency.
Trump said that Sessions should have informed the president, before Sessions ever took his seat, that he (Sessions) might be subject to a coming recusal. Trump said that he could have then nominated another.
Poor hapless Sessions. What a deal.
You have to wonder how Much further down the Road Plan we could be if Barr had been AG and Sessions had been White House Chef, instead of Michael whatshisname, who was thought to be Q last week and also went to VietNam with POTUS.
Sessions Administration career is ruined, but for a sure and easy Re-election to the US Senate, where he shined like a star.
A timeline shows Q saying “Trust Sessions” when the President was saying the same, and when the President turned against Sessions, Q stopped saying “Trust Sessions”.
The way to see this is to search the Q posts and mark each date when Q posted “Trust Sessions”. Fr each of those dates, check to see what P0TUS was saying. You will find a direct correlation.
When Q was posting “Trust Sessions”, Q was repeating what P0TUS was saying. And if you follow what the President was saying about Sessions over time, you will see he was shaken but willing to give Sessions the benefit of the doubt. But over time it became clear that P0TUS was fed up with Sessions especially for Sessions failure to prosecute Hillary. Chaffetz confirmed in a meeting with Sessions that Sessions wanted no part of going after the Clintons.
A similar play acts out in the firing of General Mattis. Listening to yesterday’s CPAC speech reveals the same dynamic in play. P0TUS wanted to describe the SWAMP and how all those that appear trustworthy are anything but.