Conservatives fume after Sessions declines to appoint new special counsel

[mystery-ak]

Conservatives fume after Sessions declines to appoint new special counsel
By Jonathan Easley - 03/30/18 05:04 PM EDT

Conservative are boiling with anger at Attorney General Jeff Sessions for declining to appoint a second special counsel to investigate alleged abuses at the FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ).

In a Thursday letter to senior GOP lawmakers in the House and Senate, Sessions explained that he had appointed John Huber, a U.S. attorney from Utah who was first appointed by former President Obama, to work with DOJ’s inspector general to determine whether a second special counsel is necessary.

While Sessions says he will accept Huber’s recommendation on whether to appoint a second special counsel, the attorney general set a high bar for an independent investigation, saying it would require “extraordinary circumstances.”

more
www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php?action=post;board=7.0

[240B]

That's par for the course with Sessions. I wouldn't expect anything else from him. I learned weeks ago where stands and who he stands with.

And I'm pretty sure Trump knows too. His initial support for Trump was a ruse. He is as establishment oriented as anyone in D.C.

I don't think he is NeverTrump or anything like that. It is just that he sees his job as being to protect the status quo first, over anything Trump wants to do.

Also, I see him as being a very typical scared-to-death old coward beaurocrat. Make no waves. See no evil. All that stuff. There can no longer be any doubt that he is most definitely the wrong guy who is in the wrong job for his personality and orientation.

You cannot be an AG who is afraid to do or challenge anything. That simply can't work.

Sessions would be a Great immigration official. That is where he needs to be.
But he is a terrible attorney general.

[Frank Cannon]

Sessions is pulling this nobody Lib appointee out of his hat do he can say he is doing something while he does nothing. He is a fraud and a charlatan.

[DB]

That's par for the course with Sessions. I wouldn't expect anything else from him. I learned weeks ago where stands and who he stands with.

And I'm pretty sure Trump knows too. His initial support for Trump was a ruse. He is as establishment oriented as anyone in D.C.

I don't think he is NeverTrump or anything like that. It is just that he sees his job as being to protect the status quo first, over anything Trump wants to do.

Also, I see him as being a very typical scared-to-death old coward beaurocrat. Make no waves. See no evil. All that stuff. There can no longer be any doubt that he is most definitely the wrong guy who is in the wrong job for his personality and orientation.

You cannot be an AG who is afraid to do or challenge anything. That simply can't work.

Sessions would be a Great immigration official. That is where he needs to be.
But he is a terrible attorney general.

Trump was making the most noise about "building a wall" and "deporting all illegals" early in the primary and that's when the Trump/Sessions bond began I believe. When Sessions endorsed Trump after their first get together along with Trump's new found illegal immigration position (contrary to previous positions in 2012) was the turning point away from Cruz and towards Trump at TOS. And that's how we got here...

[edpc]

How would he be able to, anyway? He already said during confirmation hearings he would recuse himself from anything to do with the 2016 campaigns, considering his criticism of Clinton. These investigations would necessarily investigate her and issues around the campaign.


! No longer available

[240B]

How would he be able to, anyway? He already said during confirmation hearings he would recuse himself from anything to do with the 2016 campaigns, considering his criticism of Clinton. These investigations would necessarily investigate her and issues around the campaign.

Ok. That's fine. What he just said in the video is I am unable to be the AG. I cannot do the job. So, instead of recuse why didn't he simply resign as being unfit for the office?

If I was hired by Apple and then afterward I said that because of financial and personal issues I cannot be involved in anything related to Microsoft, how long do you think I would keep that job? Why not just dump me and hire someone who has no supposed amorphous self-defined "conflicts"?

It is ABSURD to accept a job that you KNOW you cannot do! And it is even more absurd for someone with a disclaimer to be able to keep the job.

[edpc]

Ok. That's fine. What he just said in the video is I am unable to be the AG. I cannot do the job. So, instead of recuse why didn't he simply resign as being unfit for the office?

If I was hired by Apple and then afterward I said that because of financial and personal issues I cannot be involved in anything related to Microsoft, how long do you think I would keep that job? Why not just dump me and hire someone who has no supposed amorphous self-defined "conflicts"?

It is ABSURD to accept a job that you KNOW you cannot do! And it is even more absurd for someone with a disclaimer to be able to keep the job.

I don’t disagree, but he’s the one that put himself in that box. If there were signs like this in the confirmation phase, it’s up to the administration to pull him as a nominee.

[240B]

I don’t disagree, but he’s the one that put himself in that box. If there were signs like this in the confirmation phase, it’s up to the administration to pull him as a nominee.

Couldn't agree more. Maybe Trump was too busy at that time (which is understandable) and not paying attention?

[libertybele]

I've wondered many times why Trump appointed Sessions in the first place?  Perhaps on the advice of his son-in-law Jared??  He appointed him so what's keeping him from firing him?  By now, certainly Trump must realize that it is Sessions that is out to hang him, otherwise he would have seen to it that the 'Mueller' investigation into the Russian collusion ended.  Certainly Trump must realize that those investigating, namely, Mueller and Rosenstein are themselves involved in corruption and continue to bury evidence; especially for Clinton/Bammy.  So, why does Trump keep him?  It's not like Trump has ever been afraid of the fall out ... unless they do actually have something on him and/or he's part of the corruption as well.

Conservative congressmen: McCabe lied under oath, and we need a second special counsel
“Everyone in town knows we need a second special counsel.”

https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/conservative-congressmen-mccabe-lied-oath-need-second-special-counsel/

[240B]

I've wondered many times why Trump appointed Sessions in the first place?  Perhaps on the advice of his son-in-law Jared??  He appointed him so what's keeping him from firing him?  By now, certainly Trump must realize that it is Sessions that is out to hang him, otherwise he would have seen to it that the 'Mueller' investigation into the Russian collusion ended.  Certainly Trump must realize that those investigating, namely, Mueller and Rosenstein are themselves involved in corruption and continue to bury evidence; especially for Clinton/Bammy.  So, why does Trump keep him?  It's not like Trump has ever been afraid of the fall out ... unless they do actually have something on him and/or he's part of the corruption as well.

Conservative congressmen: McCabe lied under oath, and we need a second special counsel
“Everyone in town knows we need a second special counsel.”

https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/conservative-congressmen-mccabe-lied-oath-need-second-special-counsel/

@libertybele

Why does Trump keep him? That is a real mystery. It really is. The only thing that I have heard is that if Trump fires 'anybody' the Dems will block 'anybody' to replace them. And they will start that Obstruction of Justice crap again.

The Dems have successfully put Trump in a box. And Sessions is a big part of that. So if Trump fires him, the Dems will call for hearings and IG and Special Investigations and on and on. Essentially, the Dems have said that if Trump fires anyone they will set the white House on fire. And Trump is falling for it.

But Trump has shown us on several levels that he has "moderated" since the campaign. He's not the same guy. So now it no big surprise that he would back down from Dem threats.

[Sanguine]

@libertybele

Why does Trump keep him? That is a real mystery. It really is. The only thing that I have heard is that if Trump fires 'anybody' the Dems will block 'anybody' to replace them. And they will start that Obstruction of Justice crap again.

The Dems have successfully put Trump in a box. And Sessions is a big part of that. So if Trump fires him, the Dems will call for hearings and IG and Special Investigations and on and on. Essentially, the Dems have said that if Trump fires anyone they will set the white House on fire. And Trump is falling for it.

But Trump has shown us on several levels that he has "moderated" since the campaign. He's not the same guy. So now it no big surprise that he would back down from Dem threats.

It is a mystery.  I kept thinking Sessions would emerge from the fog and do the right thing, but it's becoming obvious that that's not going to happen.

[Cyber Liberty]

I probably have a minority view on this, but I'm ambivalent about a Special Counsel.  If one had been appointed, it would be months before all the staff could be assembled, more before rocks start getting overturned (and leaks start happening), and then we'd be well into the election cycle.  If Sessions wanted to keep a lid on this until after the election, there would be no better way than to appoint a Special Counsel.

I have no idea about this Huber fellow.  Odds are he's no good anyway because of his background with Holder, but Obama had polluted DeeCee so badly I'm not sure there's a bureaucrat around who could be considered "clean."  I'm just hoping we have somebody who doesn't give a crap about the DeeCee cocktail party circuit.

[libertybele]

@libertybele

Why does Trump keep him? That is a real mystery. It really is. The only thing that I have heard is that if Trump fires 'anybody' the Dems will block 'anybody' to replace them. And they will start that Obstruction of Justice crap again.

The Dems have successfully put Trump in a box. And Sessions is a big part of that. So if Trump fires him, the Dems will call for hearings and IG and Special Investigations and on and on. Essentially, the Dems have said that if Trump fires anyone they will set the white House on fire. And Trump is falling for it.

But Trump has shown us on several levels that he has "moderated" since the campaign. He's not the same guy. So now it no big surprise that he would back down from Dem threats.

Moderated?  I've never considered Trump as anything but a liberal.  He has been to the right on some issues and certainly more to the right than Bammy and at times, even 'W', but he's still a liberal.

[DB]

Moderated?  I've never considered Trump as anything but a liberal.  He has been to the right on some issues and certainly more to the right than Bammy and at times, even 'W', but he's still a liberal.

He's a New York populist. He has no anchor in any particular philosophy. It is whatever the moment seems to call for and can change on a dime.

[libertybele]

You would think by now with all this 'fuming' from the conservatives, we'd be seeing smoke signals.