Steve Bannon knew of Jeff Sessions recusal before attorney general nomination

[corbe]

Steve Bannon knew of Jeff Sessions recusal before attorney general nomination
by Joel Gehrke
April 18, 2019 04:29 PM
 
Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ recusal from the Russia investigation was “not a surprise” to White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, according to special counsel Robert Mueller.

Trump “expressed anger” about Sessions’ decision in March of 2017, the day after the former Alabama lawmaker announced that he would not oversee any federal investigations into the 2016 campaign due to his role as an adviser during the election. His recusal left Trump feeling vulnerable, but Bannon defended the decision.

“Bannon recalled telling the President that Sessions's recusal was not a surprise and that before the inauguration they had discussed that Sessions would have to recuse from campaign-related investigations because of his work on the Trump Campaign,” the report said.

Trump fumed at Sessions publicly for months. "Sessions should have never recused himself, and if he was going to recuse himself, he should have told me before he took the job and I would have picked somebody else,” he told the New York Times in July of 2017.

<..snip..>

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/steve-bannon-knew-of-jeff-sessions-recusal-before-attorney-general-nomination

[Sighlass]

Well what do ya know... Jeff was honest before, during, and after.

[Absalom]

It is imperative that any Leader be able to discern character
in subordinates and this tale is a case in point.
If Trump understood this truism, he would never have
appointed either of these buffoons.
Consider: w/o Sessions, we avoid Comey, Mueller and the
rest of that corrupt posse.

[edpc]

Consider: w/o Sessions, we avoid Comey, Mueller and the
rest of that corrupt posse.

No, we don’t. Comey was walking a thin line, anyway. The counter intelligence investigation had started in the summer of 2016. His actions during the campaign would have had him on the hot seat, if Clinton had won. Giuliani was the original choice for AG and he said he probably would have considered recusing, himself.  So, assuming that Rosenstein would still be the DAG, we are back at square one.

[Absalom]

No, we don’t. Comey was walking a thin line, anyway. The counter intelligence investigation had started in the summer of 2016. His actions during the campaign would have had him on the hot seat, if Clinton had won. Giuliani was the original choice for AG and he said he probably would have considered recusing, himself.  So, assuming that Rosenstein would still be the DAG, we are back at square one.

--------------------------
We are entitled to our opinions but an opinion is emphatically NOT a fact!
So if Sessions was never AG, events would have unfolded just they did???
Obviously some believe that changing individuals has no impact on outcomes.
Then why do corporations replace executives and football teams substitute players???
Hilarious and utter nonsense!!!

[edpc]

We are entitled to our opinions but an opinion is emphatically NOT a fact!

Except, when it is yours, apparently.     

[Sighlass]

@Sighlass

Have you ever run into Jeff Sessions or any of the other Alabama politicians we hear about besides Roy Moore?

Been years, but yes, I have shook Jeff's hand a time or two (he seems so tiny in person)... Mostly local GOP meetings (Breakfast speakers for local club)... I don't belong to the local GOP group, but they welcome all who come to meet candidates. The president of our local Republican club and I are friends (he is a nice fellow). The older I get the less outgoing I become though. Brother and Sister do more political things than I do now days... couple of my kids are political in nature also.

Edit: Opps forgot the ping back at ya. .... @TomSea