Posted on 07/25/2017 1:38:22 PM PDT by Rusty0604
In a brief interview with the Wall Street Journal, President Trump ripped into Attorney General Sessions once again. This time, the President cut even deeper, suggesting Sessions endorsed him because of Trump’s success as a candidate, not out of loyalty.
President Donald Trump expressed his disappointment in Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Tuesday and questioned the importance of Mr. Sessions’s early endorsement of Mr. Trump’s candidacy, but the president declined to say whether he planned to fire him.
“It’s not like a great loyal thing about the endorsement,” Mr. Trump said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal. “I’m very disappointed in Jeff Sessions.”
While the President is still mum on his plans concerning Sessions, Scaramucci told NBC News a decision on the AG’s future will be made ‘shortly.’
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
It sounds like Trump trusted Sessions’ judgment—the guy was to be Sessions’ Deputy, after all—and got burned.
You don’t have to use hyperbole, btw. Trump could have known quite a bit about Rosenstein. But would he have chosen him if Sessions hadn’t been pushing for him?
Maybe not.
Opinion discarded.
Into the trash it goes.
Quelle surprize!
Any responsible adult in that situation would realize that "the buck stops here" -- that is, with the person who had the ultimate responsibility to make the decision, regardless of who else was involved in the process.
I'm sure Donald Trump would have gone batsh!t crazy -- and rightly so -- if one of Trump Jr.'s real estate projects was running into trouble and the kid blamed all the problems on a deputy project manager.
That's the only way any responsible leader in an organization works. Otherwise, you end up in a situation where the chief executive rants for days about how ineffective one of his senior managers is, while everyone in the organization wonders why the lunatic doesn't just fire the guy.
Oh, wait a minute ...
LOL.
My understanding was that you put me on your ignore list. Between ourselves, that suited me to perfection. I am a live and let live type; if you’ll ignore me, I’ll be delighted to return the favor.
However, subsequently to what I understood was the Ignore List addition, you posted this to me:
‘As a political matter, Trump has to justify the decision to the public. Whther he does that before or after depends on the situation. Brownie got fired after a public “good job, Brownie” but a public PR nightmare re: Katrina.
Trump is providing the Katrina for Sessions.’
I was surprised to be addressed, when I thought you’d renounced me. However, I thought if I ignored it that would be the end of it.
Unfortunately, the mere fact of being ignoref evidently riled your thin skin afresh, so you unloaded your ‘Let’s make it personal,’ volley above.
Look, I want no part of this. Can’t you just knock it off? I give you my word to never reply to any of your posts. I’d profoundly appreciate the same in return.
I’ll address you when I feel like it. There are so many twits on FR, sometimes I lose track and address one of you. Snowflake.
I can see Trump’s POV. If Sessions presented Rosenstein as the guy he really, really wanted as his Deputy, Trump may have felt that Sessions deserved that pick. Then Sessions and Rosenstein did a Texas two-step, and Trump’s administration was thrown into a sh!t show of monumental proportions.
You may see Trump’s venting as wrong. I see no issue with dealing openly and honestly with issue. It’s just two different takes on the same situation.
I see no issue = I see no problem
Just for the record, that's you making another false accusation, but hey, that's who you are.
My "let's make it personal" volley was not because you ignored my other post, whatever it was wasn't necessarily directed to you, it was just an observation that Trump was making Sessions ugly and that facilitates or justifies firing him. I didn't expect a reply to that, and didn't even notice none came.
My "let's make it personal" volley was fairly descriptive of the character flaw I see in you, when you flat out accuse Sessions of being a liar and screwing Trump from start to finish.
Sessions put Trump in the worst possible position by lying about his Russian contacts. He screwed Trump from start to finish. If he wanted the job bad enough to lie for it, he wanted it too much and for the wrong reasons.
You deserve to be called out for that. You ought to be shunned.
I see it as nothing more than a "staged WWE event."
In this case the venting has the look and feel of being real. I realize, however, that you are in good company in taking the, ‘This is Trump playing the MSM/Dems once again,’ POV. Our local political guru, with ties to Bannon, takes your view. My personal favorite commentator, Sundance, takes my view. It should become clear before too long which is right.
The problem you face is that if the venting has the look and feel of being real, it also has the look and feel of something I’d expect to see from a 12 year-old girl, or an adult who is an immature, stunted misfit by any objective measure.
Your take on Trump’s tweets do have support on this site. I’ve seen others say the same thing. It makes me appreciate the time I spend on The_Donald. There are 7+ million Trump supporters over there. They eat up Trump’s tweets like a bear eating honey. They make actual memes depicting how hard it is to wait for the newest tweet.
As you might expect, Trump is getting nothing but support for his Sessions comments on The_Donald. No one over there (that I’ve encountered) thinks they’re a ruse. Nor do they see them as immature. They see it as a last chance for Sessions to get in gear.
I take in the attitudes and opinions at The_Donald, those expressed here, and my own, and contemplate the whole. My take at this point is that we’ll know the truth when it plays out. If Trump gains, the strategy will have been a winner. Time will tell.
do = does
(In the, ‘What was I thinking,’ category.)
WTF are you smoking?
What RS contacts are you talking about? The reception line? Really? I’ve stood in reception lines at diplomatic events and I can’t remember who I shook hands with. He didn’t lie about anything.
You really have a nasty mouth.
First, I did get the name wrong. Someone up thread said they thought it was Lavrov, and rather than look it up I copied. So much for that.
The name is Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Sessions had two conversations with him. One was at an RNC-related event. If that had been the only contact, I could believe that Sessions ‘just forgot.’
The second meeting with Ambassador Sergey Kislyak was in Sessions’ office. The, ‘I just forgot,’ excuse won’t work here. Senators have journals, secretaies, schedules and aides. There is no way to block out a tete-a-tete with the Russian ambassador in a Senator’s private office. This fact was known to Sessions.
Yet subsequently Sessions admitted he’d been part of Trump’s campaign, and then catagorically denied any and all communications with the Russians.
That was not an honest mistake. That was a lie—and it cost Trump dearly.
You call me a NeverTrumper based off of nothing, and you don’t expect return fire? STFU.
Geeeeezz.
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.