Replies

“This should be fun.”

OK, I’ll bite. I have been a Sessions supporter, or rather,
an outspoken non-basher.

But for me, it was never about “the plan”, or 4d chess. And I never bought into “Q”, Huber, or hundreds of sealed indictments.

It was simply that I couldn’t imagine a guy like Sessions effectively c@ck-blocking a guy like Trump all these months, even if he wanted to.

Even if Sessions was deep state, or compromised, (which I highly doubt), or a coward (which I highly doubt), it just seems impossible that Trump would allow him to single handedly derail his Presidency, as alleged by the Sessions haters.

Another argument that I always thought was doubtful was the idea that Sessions’ recusal was a surprise to Trump. I’m not buying it. As I recall, the question of whether Sessions would recuse himself received a great deal of focus in his confirmation hearings - how could Trump have missed that? And I’m not buying that Trump was afraid of some RINO senators either.

So what that left for me was the conclusion that Trump himself was calling all the shots - regarding both the DOJ’s hands-off policy toward ending the Mueller witch hunt, and the DOJ’s hands-off policy toward prosecuting top ex-Obama administration officials for SpyGate crimes.

It seems to me that it is Trump himself who decided to take the passive route in both of these areas, tolerating the Mueller witch hunt, and declining to go after Obama minions. Trump just doesn’t strike me as the type of POTUS who allows terms to be dictated to him by an underling - and a mild mannered one at that.

The way I rationalized Trump’s passivity was not some 4D chess Art of the Deal scheme - it was simply that he knew he was innocent of any Russia collusion and that being transparent and submitting to the probe could only exonerate him and generate good will. Conversely, he knew that locking up leaders of the opposition party would only create political martyrs, who would soon be pardoned anyway.

If I’m wrong about all of this, the new AG will quickly fire Mueller and hand down indictments to top Democrats involved in SpyGate. If I’m right, we will see more of the same in a post-Sessions Trump administration - namely, Trump focusing on MAGA, not RussiaGate or SpyGate.

The only part of all this that bothers me is the idea that Trump could allow Sessions to take the blame for being “too passive”, if it was his decision to do so. If Trump used Sessions as a scapegoat to appease his most ardent “lock her up” supporters, then I hope for Jeff Sessions’ sake it all comes out in the open one day.

The most probable story is key GOP Senators were involved in FISA and the coverup.
McCain, Graham, Romney, Flake and probably Corker.
They worked with Reid and Schumer to get the fabricated data to the FBI and CIA.

This is why the Bush Family and many of their $$$ supporters decided to actively oppose Trump. The Bush connections to the CIA leaked the info to them.

Sessions decided to slow walk the investigation to make sure we didn't loose the Senate and his friends.

If you think about it, this seems like a highly more likely scenario than any proposed by "Q"

"Another argument that I always thought was doubtful was the idea that Sessions’ recusal was a surprise to Trump. I’m not buying it. As I recall, the question of whether Sessions would recuse himself received a great deal of focus in his confirmation"

I think Trump was unaware of the recusal when he nominated Sessions. After that horse left the barn and was soon found lame, it was too late for a do-over.

Plus Sessions wasn't really intent on cleaning the stables at the DoJustUs and totally fell in with the DOJ bureaucrats who gave him all the reasons why it was ethically imperative that he recuse. Plus Sessions is not a fighter against his recent Senate peers. [H->! for example]