Posted on 04/20/2018 4:12:28 PM PDT by Magnatron
Attorney General Jeff Sessions recently told the White House he might have to leave his job if President Trump fired his deputy, Rod J. Rosenstein, who oversees the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, according to people familiar with the exchange.
Sessions made his position known in a phone call to White House counsel Donald McGahn last weekend, as Trump’s fury at Rosenstein peaked after the deputy attorney general approved the FBI’s raid April 9 on the president’s personal attorney Michael Cohen.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Kewl! A twofer!
The Senate Rot is strong with Sessions
Kabuki.
What if you needed to use evidence that would in any other instance not be admissible in court? The evidence could pertain to anything, but in this case you kept a careful record with your personal attorney how you came by this evidence.
What if it were taken from your personal attorney in a raid of his office?
That would be a shame.
“Rosenstein is doing his job for him so Sessions would have to leave.”
Good point. Ol Jeff might actually have to do his job.
Why way> The Manchurian AG should leave now.
Can Sessions possibly find a bigger knife to stab in the back of President Trump?
Sessions has no honor and can’t even spell integrity.
And why does Sessions have that startled look in his face?
That tells us everything we need to know about Sessions.
What an utter fraud this guy has turned out to be.
Rosenstein is running the DOJ. If he’s fired, Sessions will be a fish out of water; he has no idea how to step into the driver’s seat.
I don’t think he should fir anyone yet. Let Mueller wrap up his investigation and then fire away. Clean house!
I don’t think he should fir anyone yet. Let Mueller wrap up his investigation and then fire away. Clean house!
Sure, the compost prints it and people still buy it. I don’t.
effJ Sessions.
Sessions always defends Rosenweasel.
But never defends Trump.
I figured if he could he would have from the start.
They look like programmed robots.
A Twofer
What’s not to like?
Funny how when a guy shoots a store clerk in front of witnesses the press always refers to his actions as “alleged” even when the witnesses are known and not at all anonymous...
But when the same reporters are told information they have no way to verify by anonymous people too cowardly to give their names... the unverifiable information is never prefaced with “allegedly,” as in, “allegedly told so and so in a phone call...” “Allegedly said this or that.” The reporters always imply the information they are fed is dead certain by omitting the uncertain term “alleged.”
The reporter wants us to believe that the content of a confidential call was overheard by more than one person... which seems rather unlikely if it wasn’t a conference call.
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.