Posted on 07/21/2017 11:12:49 PM PDT by Boomer
Despite his recent criticism of Attorney General Jeff Sessions for recusing himself from the “Russia collusion” investigation of the Trump campaign, President Trump should thank Sessions for stepping aside from the probe that is drawing breathless media coverage almost every day.
Why? Because any investigation overseen by Sessions that cleared Trump and his campaign of wrongdoing would immediately draw criticism, due to Sessions’ role as an important surrogate and close adviser to candidate Trump. Democrats would complain that no matter how little solid evidence was found, Sessions would be acting improperly in clearing Team Trump because he was hopelessly biased in favor of the president.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
He knew Russia was an issue and he knew he was going to oversee the investigation. Of course he knew or should have known. Negligent.
I firmly believe Sessions viewed both Obama appointed Ag’s Holder, and Lynch, violated their sworn constitutional obligations and even assisted and advised Obama when he began doing so. Because they did, their actions deeply affected Sessions recusal decision. If that was one of his reasons for recusing he should be bringing this up and deflect these political attacks even if it does mean opening up a new can of worms from the Demo cannery.
Bull
“You can literally replace Sessions’ name with any other person’s name and criticism will immediately be drawn”
Same goes for a (fill in the blank) republican presidential name. Trump is the target because Trump is the Republican holding the office. Any Republican will do.
The Democrats would exercise this rabidly caustic campaign on any Republican. Historically this behavior was/is communistic and fascist in application. Put lipstick on this toxic democrat pig and it is still a toxic democrat pig.
The “Democratic” Party is anything but democratic.
The situation may take on another form when Scaramucci is handling Communications. DJT will have another street fighter out there forming the White House’s narrative without the president having to do it himself. He can distance himself to some degree.
The evidence does not support your conclusion. Yes, he knew that Mook and others had "blamed Russia" and "accused Trump of egging the Russians on to steal Hillary's email," but neither of them foresaw what is being sold as a criminal investigation against the Trump campaign, for coordinating Russian activities to the benefit of the Trump campaign.
Within the past few days I've read the contemporaneous material around the time of announcement (November), confirmation hearings (January), and at that point in time, NOBODY was making noises that the campaign was going to be accused of that criminal act. Durbin raised the possibility as a hypothetical in January.
By your standard, YOU TOO should have known, in November, that a Special Counsel was going to be appointed to oversee an investigation into Trump campaign dealing with Russia. was that on your mid the week after the election?
“I didn’t vote for a president of all people. I voted for a wrecking ball aimed at leftists.”
“Amen!” To that.
“at that point in time, NOBODY was making noises that the campaign was going to be accused of that criminal act.”
Technically, you’re right. Still, in PIAPS’ first debate, or one of the first debates, she nonchalantly threw out the word, “Russia”. At that moment I assumed that was going to be their ace in the hole if she lost and told my husband. I can’t be the only one who picked up on that, and I figure I’m not as smart as Jeff Sessions. If he didn’t know, he should’ve had an inkling.
Sessions was working with the conflict management people at DoJ from January until March, I'm sure not full time, but questions of what he might have to recuse from were flying around and would have to be addressed eventually.
It turns out that he would not be seen as unbiased in a case involving the Trump campaign. As the French say, "quelle surprise!" A parallel univers AG Podesta would not be seen as unbiased in a case involving Hillary, either.
Session's recusal is by the book. If there was not a regulation "on point," I doubt he would have recused from an investigation into criminal conduct by the Trump campaign.
My point is that I don;t think sessions recusal was affected in the least by the conduct of Holder and Lynch. The simple fact is that a person who was part of the campaign won;t be seen as unbiased if asked to judge the campaign.
Trump's fate in this battle does not depend on Sessions, he has plenty of other soldiers to draw from. And Sessions would have a tough time fighting this battle, just like Lynch would have a tough time fighting a battle to protect Crooked Hillary.
——I just wish some action was happening——
What makes you think there is not vigorous action that is unseen?
Sessions always has a smile, like the cat that ate the canary. He is acting. We must be patient.
He resigned from the insignificant Russia investigation farce so there would be no taint or stench on his work product that all in Washington know is going to destroy the Democrats.
It was revealed yesterday their fund raising is pitiful. The donors are not giving money to a lost cause.
The rioters will be so angry they will burn the cities
What about Trump? Should he have had an inkling? Why did he appoint a guy that he should have known would have to recuse himself? All Trump had to do was pick a nominee from outside the campaign.
You assume the Russia crap is important. It is not. It is trivial and amounts to nothing. Your assumption is the fabricated mind warp that duped you into thinking the Russia stuff matters
Sessions has a larger devastating mission. He is going to destroy the democrats. They know it. Their mind warping efforts to stop Trump are the pitiful actions of losers.
“Also cannot fathom/understand how that jerk Rosenstein—of Baltimore—became deputy AG.”
Good point. And, why is McCabe still the top man in the FBI,he is big Hillary supporter, while his wife got thousands of dollars from the RATS for her campaign?
A word to the wise here ...
All of the stories about Mueller expanding his probe into Trump's old business dealings are coming from "unnamed sources" that have no credibility. Remember that after all the bullsh!t about front-page stories in the New York Times and lead stories on CNN about Trump from January to May of this year, Comey eventually admitted under oath that the stories were false and Trump was never a target of an FBI investigation.
Sessions is fine. In fact, seeing his statement yesterday about how he intends to stay on as AG -- despite a loud "no confidence" statement by his boss in the media -- tells me that the whole Trump NYT interview was just a "staged WWE episode" in the first place.
I agree with where you go with that, but at the moment, the Russia crap is consuming a significant fraction of Trump's political capital. If it wasn't Russia, it would be some other fabricated issue. It is a distraction worth destroying.
In this thread, many are using the events swirling around the Russia crap as justification to fire Sessions. When Sessions is fired, his mission is over.
Distraction is the point of the Democrat assault.
The fact that some are distracted is irrelevant to the main mission being implemented by those firmly on course and completely out of view
The Trump comments are in fact counter distraction. He played the media like a Stradivarius . They are playing the distracting tune written in the bowels of the White House with Trump as conductor
I take that as the DEMs assault lies elsewhere, and not along the anti-Trump lines being crafted by the press. I'm curious then, where the DEMs attack is running, "completely out of view."
We have a fair idea of where Trump might be running "out of view," and that would be things like election fraud and prosecuting big-name DEM politicians, and deep state leakers, for crimes.
But I'm curious to read your speculation about the DEM assault - the part that is out of view.
No, no, no....... In my view, the Rats always take credit for their actions. They constantly pat themselves on the back. I have no thoughts of Rat actions “out of view”.
The “out of view” process is thought to be within the DOJ managed by AG Sessions and the soon to be confirmed Christopher Wray at the FBI.
I have come to believe that although timing is the key factor in the process of producing indictments, a Director of the FBI is necessary to the bureaucratic accomplishment. When the bureau has a director firmly in place, things may begin to come to light in the most damaging way the presentations can be made.
No, Sessions does not need to go. We don’t need to give the liberals another trophy head. Sessions did what ethics required. I don’t know about you but I kind of like the idea of an AG who puts ethics first, refreshing considering the people who have been in that office.
Thanks for clearing up my confusion.
I totally agree. Additional examples: the timing of Comey firing was driven by the appointment of Rosenstein. McCabe (and other Comey acolytes, Rybicki and Baker) will be fired or neutered by Wray. The rot runs deep.
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.