Posted on 02/08/2018 11:26:48 PM PST by KJC1
There is no monetary reward, of course.
But let's as FReepers place "bets". We can give each other Schiff later over who was wrong or right.
Some think he's napping, some think he's working behind the scenes.
So, if you'd like to participate, please do, and I hope I'm right but I vote for working behind the scenes.
With the re-evaluation of Mark Warner, I now see Sessions was very very smart to pretend to be completely hands off and Trump pretending to be very very upset with Sessions. The Obama knot is slowly unraveling.
And if those pot smokers and gang members are "Dreamers" they will be charged with a crime and will be deported and not be eligible for any DACA deal.
Agree. There is so much corruption at high levels of management in most fed agencies. President Trump and his team are cleaning the Aegean stables with teaspoons. I have faith that the White Hats will out. Patience.
....firing Sessions would help Mueller build an obstruction case. ’d bet that shortly after Mueller finishes his report Sessions and Rosenstein will be fired.
That’s the best case scenario we can hope for, but what if Mueller ‘never finishes?’
Republicans are simply not equipped to press the advantage. It must be something in the water in DC, because Republicans refuse to play their strong cards EVERY time.
-PJ
”The proper thing for me to do would be to recuse myself in anything involving Secretary Clinton that were raised in the campaign,” Sessions testified in response to a question from Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa...
Why Jeff? Why is Hillary off limits? What would be IMPROPER about investigating Clinton?
What dealings did Sessions have with Clinton that would require him to recuse himself?
There is something very wrong with that declaration.
My Vote - Napping for effect.
1) The Bundy judge, a product of Obama politicization, had to be shamed before the public before the admissions of prosecutorial misconduct were made public. Sessions showed incredibly bad judgment in complimenting her work. Portlandia, anyone?
2) The IRS / Lerner acts against conservative tax entities continues today from failure of Sessions ‘oversight’.
In Session’s defense, the globalists have prevented the approval of Deputy and mid-level appointments. This is due to the direct support of the globalist Congressional GOPe who failed to set up vacation appointments by overruling the filibuster rule, making the appointments, then reversing their overrule, re-establishing the filibuster rule. Because they can.
That used to be a good description. And illegals do form a very large portion of our prison population.
But today we are pretty much conquered territory run by and for the benefit of Mexico's citizens illegally residing in California. The worthless GOP establishment not only does nothing to reverse that, it actually encourages it.
“You do realize, you’re saying that Sessions lied when he recused, don’t you?”
https://lawfareblog.com/does-sessions-have-recuse-himself-russia-investigations
The Law of Recusal
Under 28 U.S.C. § 528, the Attorney General “shall promulgate rules and regulations which require the disqualification of any officer or employee of the Department of Justice . . . from participation in a particular investigation or prosecution if such participation may result in a personal, financial, or political conflict of interest, or the appearance thereof.” So the statute requires recusal where an actual or apparent conflict exists, but leaves it to the Attorney General to promulgate regulations with more detailed criteria for assessing such conflicts. And as with many conflict of interest provisions, the law makes clear that even an appearance of such a conflict is legally problematic.
The operative DOJ regulation is at 28 C.F.R. § 45.2 (a section titled “Disqualification arising from personal or political relationship”). Under the regulation, “no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with” either “any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution” or “any person or organization which he knows has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution.”
The regulation defines “political relationship” as “a close identification with an elected official, a candidate (whether or not successful) for elective, public office, a political party, or a campaign organization, arising from service as a principal adviser thereto or a principal official thereof.” So as a principal adviser to Donald Trump’s campaign, Sessions seems to fall squarely into the provision, even if you ignore the very real possibility that Sessions himself might have an interest in the outcome.
“Trump would have cut Sessions loose a long time ago if he hadn’t been threatened with impeachment by Republicans.”
And we know that this actually occurred how?
That wouldn't even make sense in a movie plot - much less, the real world.
It was widely reported at the time. I'm surprised you missed it.
Loser. Doing everything he can to keep his FBI file on his and William Pryor’s gay escapades buried. Totally compromised and blackmailed.
I never said that Sessions was wrong to recuse himself.
What I said is, having recused himself, Sessions CAN'T be 'working behind the scenes', because a recusal means you're I really barred from involvement in said case or investigation.
If Sessions really is working behind the scenes, then his recusal was a lie.
It means that Sessions is overseeing every part of the DOJ other than Mueller’s team. Recusal only affects that.
And one thing that Sessions is overseeing is the DOJ Inspector General which will prove to be far more important than Mueller.
Well I’m patient. Give me a link.
Congress cannot impeach a President for firing his cabinet members. It’s a right inherent in the executive. The last time Congress tried that was in the Andrew Johnson presidency, and it was regarded as an unConstitutional power grab by President Grant and every administration since.
In case there is any doubt the Supreme Court ruled on that very issue in 1926 in Myers vs United States.
“Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926), was a United States Supreme Court decision ruling that the President has the exclusive power to remove executive branch officials, and does not need the approval of the Senate or any other legislative body.”
That's exactly what I said when Trump was threatened with impeachment if he fired Jeff Sessions.
As far as links to stories about threats to impeach Trump over possibly firing Sessions, I found a ton of stories about the whole kerfuffle, but my weak eyes can't make out the script at most of those websites. Sorry 'bout that.
I truly hope you're right, but I have seen no objective evidence to justify faith or trust in Sessions, whatsoever.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.