Posted on 07/25/2017 7:33:44 PM PDT by Bratch
When President Trump made his initial remarks reflecting disappointment in Attorney General Jeff Sessions it was initially unnerving. The subsequent fallout from the public criticism has united the NeverTrump crowd, Cruzbots and professionally GOPe, to defend the honor of the much beloved former Senator. The opportunity to bash Trump is simply an ancillary benefit.
Conversely, the MAGA community has largely portrayed the rift as if the Presidential critique was part of a larger strategy between the President and Attorney General. If we wait long enough some mysterious master plan will eventually to be discovered.
However, the subsequent POTUS tweets and comments do not indicate any joint strategy at all. What they do actually show is a genuine disappointment and frustration with the focus of Jeff Sessions; and the cabinet member’s apparent unwillingness to confront the corruption within the DOJ and by extension the larger DC swamp.
It is not accidental the frustration and disappointment surface as the various opposition groups to the Trump presidency begin to target the entire Trump family. Despite some opinion to the contrary, Donald Trump does have a nuclear trigger point; target his family and you’ll find it quick. Just ask anyone who has known him for any substantive amount of time.
President Trump affirms his ‘confidence’ in Jeff Sessions’ ability to do the swamp draining and simultaneously expresses ‘disappointment’ that AG Sessions chooses not to. Confidence and disappointment are not mutually exclusive sentiments.
Under the former administration the Department of Justice was weaponized politically and legally by the executive branch against ordinary American citizens. A political example is the joint efforts between the DOJ and IRS to target political opposition, the Tea Party and organizations like True the Vote.
The legal examples of DOJ weaponization extend from “Fast and Furious” gun running ops to the targeting of the manufacturer of Gibson Guitar, and to legal cases involving local police departments like Ferguson Missouri, Baltimore Maryland and individuals like George Zimmerman. These are only a few examples; there are many more.
Attorneys’ General Loretta Lynch and Eric Holder did not participate in these examples alone. Under their guidance there exists a myriad of corrupt officials, black hats within the DOJ, who participated in all aspects of the weaponization.
This underlying corrupt architecture is what Jeff Sessions is choosing to ignore. This is the source of Trump’s frustration and disappointment. These deep state black hats within the DOJ are transparently not being confronted; meanwhile AG Sessions is running around the country with Rod Rosenstein holding pressers and proclaiming victories.
Yes, it’s great to finally have a law enforcement agenda with border policy, drug enforcement, and the capture of criminal enterprises with pedophile rings and human trafficking. Yes, all of that is great. However, there’s a larger issue at DOJ central where the refusal to confront the corrupt aspects within the organization only serves to fuel and enable the continuance of a corrupt swamp in Washington DC.
The corrupt institutional system that AG Sessions is apparently refusing to confront, are now targeting the personal family of the presidency. What usefulness is there in winning the small stuff if Sessions is refusing to confront the larger and more dangerous systemic corruption.
President Trump is an existential threat to the entire apparatus of the DC swamp. And so far AG Sessions appears content to ignore, or at best is prioritizing confrontation with the swamp at a much lower level of importance.
The commentary by President Trump should be considered against the totality of this backdrop. Winter is here; the time for confrontation is now. Mild mannerisms are not a valuable skill-set when engaged in epic confrontation. President Trump was not elected to nibble around the edges nor does his possess such a tempered disposition toward half-measures leaving the effort to someone else.
As a consequence, President Trump won’t let up on the pressure being applied to Jeff Sessions until the Attorney General agrees to clean his own house (and neighborhood) before journeying off to distant needs and righteous law enforcement endeavors. The most important battle is in Washington DC. So long as Sessions ignores this issue the pressure will remain.
Eventually, if the historic track repeats, Jeff Sessions will tender his resignation and an important heart-to-heart meeting of purpose will follow.
Whether that resignation is accepted or not will be entirely dependent on the disposition and willingness of Attorney General Jeff Sessions to confront the corrupt enterprise that has encircled Washington DC and metastasized its bile.
The Attorney General might not actually possess the skills, the instincts, to lead that disinfecting endeavor; or he might not desire to participate in an epic battle of such a politically adversarial nature.
Winter is here.
The choice will ultimately be his.
#2. You hit the nail on the head. Sessions gave up his authority before he even began to exercise it.
I told a friend that it was like the commander of an army, upon arriving at the future battlefield, said that he didn’t like the looks of it and left, leaving his second in command to prepare for battle.
In this case, the second in command is Rosenstine, who may be a good DA but not up to this particular battle.
Sessions should have acted like Grant, be out front at the preparations for a battle and overseeing it, but letting his field commanders perform their duties as they are trained for (or be removed like McClellan was after Bull Run 1 & II).
This is a battle to the death with the embedded Obamites and disrupters of the Deep State. No time for faint hearts and absentee commanders.
AG Sessions, a good man, has to understand that this is no longer the Marquis De Queensberry rules arena. It is a winner take all, take no prisoners, and use iron fists instead of steely words.
Good luck to him and to our country.
Time to clean the swamp with dynamite.
At least is gets the Russians off the front page..
Are you suggesting Priebus would really be big enough to do that? Trumps first big mistake right there. He did pick Pence.....always the smartest man in the room which more than makes up for the chief of staff blunder.
Decision making seems to be too decentralized with the executive department heads and we see state DOD and DOJ and other departments making decisions at odds with the issues that won the election for Trump. When business is decentralized, they are guided by Corporate Polices , and it is understood what decisions the decentralized managers can make on their own, and what decisions must be made with corporate headquarters, or the WH is this case.
That degree of organization and understanding clearly doesn't exist among the WH and the executive departments yet, and something is needed to improve communication and coordination between those involved.
I think his commentary is spot on.
Sundance has a track record of calling these situations accurately. Some have speculated he’s got a reliable WH source feeding him insider info. However it is, he’s pretty much always right.
I called this week’s ago when the rift between POTUS and AG began... and no I don’t know Trump for any amount of time. I have however followed him since his career began and have always been a fan of his work ethic, his vision and just how he carries himself. I said it then and I’ll say it now...when Sessions first recused himself the President made it known that he was disappointed and that was that. All these months later nothing had been said except when they started to go after his son and his son-in-law; his daughter’s husband. That was it...the gloves are off and he’s coming out fighting and good for him! Sessions did not do the right thing by not telling the President he was going to recuse himself. I’m still not sure he needed to; I’m not a lawyer but I don’t know why he had to recuse himself.So now POTUS is coming after everyone with guns blazing. He’s pulled Scaramucci out of his quiver, pulled him back and has fired him deftly into the crowd of The West Wing. If Attorney General Sessions doesn’t get on the ball he should be gone. I’m not sure he should be going off to El Salvador or focusing on anything other than the swamp, the sewer, the Cesspool that is Washington. As the writer said...Sessions has been told to clean up his backyard, his neighborhood... clean it up or we don’t have a shot!!
#MAGA
#
Excellent analysis. I agree with every word. I hope Sessions gets into high gear or is soon gone. Enough lollygagging.
My take on why Sessions had to recuse is simple. He lied straight up on his security clearance application. He said he’d met I’m not a lawyer but I don’t know why he had to recuse himself.with no representatives of foreign governments, when in fact he’d had two meetings with the Russian ambassador. His lie would have flown except that the ambassador reported to the Kremlin what had been discussed...and that call was recorded and leaked (NSA, most likely).
Trump is right to be furious. Sessions hung him out to dry.
Recusal is generally done when the prosecutor has either a friendly or a hostile relationship with the potential defendant. "Strictly business" is the rule. The law aims to make people think none of the actions taken are personal.
DOJ conflict regulation 28 CFR 45.2 calls for prosecutor recusal from cases involving personal or political allies. Sessions cited this regulation by content in his recusal notice in March, and he cited it by number in his June 13 testimony before Senate Intelligence.
I don't have a numerical citation for recusal when the case involves a "foe." But Sessions said, in his January confirmation hearing, before Trump appointed him, that he would not a case against Hillary or the Clinton Foundation, because it could credibly be said he was biased against them.
A majority of posters on FR think the law should operate on a personal basis -- that when a prosecutor has it in for a defendant, or is best friends of the defendant, it is still okay for that prosecutor to take the case. Otherwise the prosecutor is weak.
No... I understand that they have to be non-biased etc... and I appreciate the clarity on the recusal piece. I’ve heard both sides-some say he had no reason to recuse, some others say he had to recuse... who knows at this point.it’s moot except for the fact that he’s not really pursuing draining the swamp too much and I think those are his marching orders from the President. That should be his focus.
Personally speaking, my boss doesn’t have to tell me what he wants me to do - I know him and I know what his expectations are and when his priorities shift mine have to shift in concert with him. I don’t think Trump’s priorities ever shifted away from draining the swamp. Hopefully things will work out. I would really not like to see Sessions go but I also would like to see my President be successful.
Ty...and I too, hope we see a fire in Sessions’ belly to get on the stick and get the title “RotoRooter Man” in DC.
Well, instead of accepting your own confusion based on "some say this, some say that," you can always read the regulation and seek cases where it has been applied, so you can decide which side of the fence YOU come down on, using YOUR own noodle.
-- ... it's moot except for the fact that he's not really pursuing draining the swamp too much and I think those are his marching orders from the President. --
It's not "moot." It's a done deal. He said he would recuse, he recused, and that's that. He is not going to involve himself in cases against Hillary, and he is not going to involve himself in cases against the Trump campaign. It would be "moot" if that condition didn't matter, but Trump is laying out substantial shade on that point, making it hardly "moot." A substantial fraction of FR poster find Sessions deserves to be fired for this "moot" thing.
If going after Hillary is the extent of "the swamp," then yeah, he's not in that war. Doesn't mean he is doing nothing. He's a pit bull on immigration, MS-13. He recommended firing Comey, which was a pretty good chunk of swamp draining.
-- Personally speaking, my boss doesn't have to tell me what he wants me to do --
And you think Sessions is deficient, at best, because he is having to be told what to do.
I hope so...but first he’s got to jaunt down to el Salvador. Priorities, you understand.
Lol
1) yes you are 100% right and I feel like I just got scolded by my parents lol! I will do my own research... I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer when it comes to rules and regulations re DOJ, but I will do my best to muddle through and draw my own conclusion.You’re 100% right and I appreciate you saying that. I will use my own noodle it’s a good noodle...A God-given Noodle meant to be used!
2)re Sessions recusal... to me the word “moot” means a done deal that’s what moot means it’s over it’s done it’s irrelevant at this point so yes you’re right it is a done deal I totally concur. I do however wish that he would get more Vigilant about draining the swamp. I think that is critical but yes he is doing a lot of work on MS-13 which is also a focus for sure. And I’m not sure why he would not go after Hillary because she’s the biggest crook on the planet and so is her campaign manager her IT guy and anybody else it was had anything to do with the clintons for years. As I said I believe (I haven’t looked at my old comment but I believe I said I would like to see Sessions succeed and remain as a g) I just think more focus needs to be paid to draining the swamp... that’s to make the Presidency be successful there’s too many bad guys on both sides of the of the aisle and they need to go.
3) regarding my boss not having to tell me what to do... yeah...I stand by that to the extent that I have a clear understanding of mission and for the most part I have autonomy. I am expected to know what I am supposed to do unless something pops up that is outsude the scope of the original nission. Other than that, I work everyday autonomously without being told what to do to contribute to the success of our corporate mission; I get results and when I have any questions I will circle back to my boss or any of the leadership to make sure I’m on the right track (run things up the flagpole). But again 99% of the time it is my job to know the mission and to work towards fulfilling that mission, so if I am not able to do that yes I see that as a deficiency in myself as an employee and team member. I certainly would see it as a deficiency in the attorney-general .. one of the brightest legal minds in the country if he has to be told what to do a lot.
I appreciate the back and forth... always good to have a nice open conversation and again I will look up the rules about recusal and decide which side I come down on with a more educated, if you will, opinion.
"Moot" to me (I have a JD, fwiw, and this word comes up in legal context) is a certain type of "done deal." It's a done deal that has no ramification in the current circumstance or issue. A "moot point" is one that, no matter which side of it one takes, the outcome in this decision is the same. Moot = it doesn't matter.
On your #3, the boss not telling you what do do. That supposes the boss know what your job is, perhaps having defined it in the first place, or being a clear part of the org that he understands. My view of the Trump v. Sessions kerfuffle is that Sessions has a better understanding than his boss does.
That happens from time to time, and doesn't reflect badly on the boss. DOJ and legal cases have non-trivial complexity. Those guys have to get their cases through trial, involving judges, who tend to be independent themselves.
The basics of law are complex. Not difficult, I don't think. Most anybody can "get it." Just that there are many levers and purposes. Most of the rules make sense, and trouble comes up because somebody isn't following the rules, either on purpose to get a result, or by accident out of unclear understanding.
What do you do if the boss orders you to do something unethical? Tough spot. What if the boss tell you how to do your job, and you know, from your experience, that the solution the boss insists on will fail? Another tough spot.
I'm not suggesting those avenues as a matter of persuasion, by the way, nor meaning to draw a parallel between the general case and the specific case of Trump v. Sessions. I just mean to point out what we both know, and that is that boss/subordinate spats can swing in many different directions.
Do you not think the DOJ is being used against the President for political reasons, a situation Sessions could have at least aided the administration he belongs to had he not recused himself so quickly?
I'm going to modify your premise, at least, although I reject it.
I think Sessions recusals were/are actually in Trump's best interest, in addition to being "by the book" and otherwise sensible, right thing to do, etc.
If Sessions hadn't answered in his confirmation hearing that he would recuse from Hillary cases, this issue likely wouldn't be with us today. He wouldn't have been confirmed.
If Sessions was confirmed anyway, and didn't recuse, that issue would have blown up as Sessions not following the usual practices that apply to prosecutors in general. A prosecutor isn't supposed to take a case for a friend, or against an enemy.
He might have survived the outburst, and I get it, FR poster think that acting like Holder or Lynch is okay. Sessions doesn't think so, and he put his money where his mouth is. Might cost him his job, but he'll have his (own) conscience, even though plenty of people will criticize him - no matter which way he goes. He cannot possibly win.
That said, DoJ could certainly be used "against the president," but I don't necessarily see Mueller as part of the DoJ. Technically, he is outside the government.
I trust the professionals around Trump to handle the Mueller thing just fine. That battle has barely begun. Sessions is not the only person who can fight for Trump's interests, nor is he indispensable. He is a warrior, a good one in my estimation, a valuable one. But the legal system, the goal of impartiality and his fealty to that goal, those things have him sidelined.
Ultimately, Trump knows Sessions is not going to unrecuse, etc. Trump is totally free to manage his cabinet how he sees fit. He answers for the performance of the executive branch.
Y’know... I considered that as well because Sessions is a veteran in Washington and also a lawyer where Trump of course is not. I just wonder if it’s not the kind of relationship where the AG could sort of teach the boss do you know what I mean? I would think President Trump would be open to that or at least have people that he may know better than Jeff Sessions to sort of say “hey Sessions is right he dad to do this blah blah blah”. I guess at the end of the day it would have been best practice for Jeff Sessions to have told him ahead of time “I’m going to recuse myself” that would be my only sticking point. Other than that I got it... yeh, absolutely. You know sometimes subordinates DO know more than the boss just because of years in the position, familiarity with the process etc so it’s a learning curve for everybody. I just hope they make it through this transition I think Kelly is a good choice although I would love to see Newt Gingrich back in the White House you know in the administration....
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.