[Alberta's Child]

Yes, it's a "self recusal." But the consequences of a recusal/non-recusal are totally one-sided. The only issue at stake is the integrity of the prosecuting body in a prosecuting role in the particular matter at hand.

1. If a prosecutor recuses himself in a case when a recusal isn't really necessary, then someone else just does his job in that case.

2. If a prosecutor doesn't recuse himself in a case when a recusal is warranted, then the successful prosecution of the case is jeopardized.

This is why a prosecutor who actually wants to prosecute a case and doesn't want the charges to be thrown out later will usually decide in favor of a recusal if there is a legitimate question about a potential conflict of interest.

Now go back and look at the apparent conflicts with Rosenstein and Mueller in this context. Do you get the impression that they ever expected any criminal charges that came out of Mueller's investigation to stick? After seeing how amateurish Mueller's team has been in the Concord Management case, I'd say: absolutely not.

[Kalamata]

Thank you for posting your thoughts. Very good stuff to ponder.

[for-q-clinton]

Of course they didn’t. In fact, you can’t indict a sitting president. This is all about their cover up and getting dirt on Trump so wound him or impeach him.

So why did Session’s refuse himself again? Using your logic he WANTS the charges to stick on Trump if they find some. So he recused himself. Otherwise don’t recuse and he could lead the investigation into Russian meddling and put the special prosecutor on a leash.

Keep in mind Mueller is only charged to look at Russian meddling. NOT crimes by the FBI and DOJ during the election. So I ask you what do we get by Session’s recusal?