There were calls for Sessions to recuse himself for days before his confirmation hearing, from Dims and Republicans. It was in the news daily and it was a failure of the Trump administration that a chief of staff, or WH counsel, or Trump or Sessions did not call key people together to discuss the issue and make a team decision of what Sessions should do.
This issue was no surprise to anyone paying attention for days before Sessions did say he'd recuse himself. I think I'll start a thread about this tomorrow as so many either never knew, or have forgotten how this unfolded.
Your recollections seem correct to me.
Here’s one:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/jeff-sessions-confirmation-hearing-expectations/index.html
-PJ
I'm reading transcripts of Sessions' confirmation hearings.
The following subjects are raised as points of recusal on January 10, 2017:
My response to the -- my recusal issue was because I'd made public comments about it that could be construed as having an opinion on the final judgment that would have to be rendered. I don't think I made any comments on this issue that go to that, but I would review it and try to do the right thing as to whether or not it should stay within the jurisdiction of the attorney general or not.DURBIN: It would strike me that this is an obvious case for a special prosecutor if it involves a campaign leading to a candidate who selected you as the attorney general. Wouldn't an abundance of caution suggest that you wouldn't want any questions raised about your integrity in that type of prosecution?
SESSIONS: Senator Durbin, I think it would be incumbent upon anybody who's holding the office of attorney general at that time to carefully think his way through that, to seek the advice and to follow the normal or appropriate special prosecutor standards. And so I would intend to do that. But I have not expressed an opinion on the merits of those issues, to my knowledge.
The second day, January 11, Sessions did not appear but the issue of recusal came up.
Sessions "hung in there" too, and recused only after reviewing the regulations, which are on point in relation to his history with the Trump campaign.
-- it was a failure of the Trump administration that a chief of staff, or WH counsel, or Trump or Sessions did not call key people together to discuss the issue and make a team decision of what Sessions should do. --
As to investigations into the Trump campaign, it wasn't an issue. It could have been, hypothetically, and in hindsight it is clear that Durbin was in collusion on a planned investigation.
If they'd had foresight of this, there were a few avenues to investigate. Did the rule call for recusal? If so, do we flout them, or follow them? If we follow them, who do I nominate? (can't be somebody from within the campaign).
All water over the dam. At this point, Trump blames Sessions, and hasn't gotten over it.