Columns, Congress, Constitutional Law, Criminal law, Media, Politics

The Doomsday Scenario: How Replacing Sessions Could Trigger A Cascading Series Of Unfortunate Events

Superman_Doomsday_logojeff_sessions_official_portraitBelow is my column in USA Today on the possibility of a “Doomsday scenario” where President Donald Trump first fired (or forces the resignation) of Jeff Sessions and then moves to fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller.  That scenario was reinforced yesterday with reports that Trump has discussed firing Sessions and giving a recess appointment to his successor — the very scenario laid out earlier in this column.   In addition, Trump blasted Sessions again yesterday — this time criticizing him for not replacing Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, whose wife ran for office in Virginia in 2015 and received large contributions from the Democratic Party.   

Trump’s unrelenting criticism of Sessions is occurring at the same time as new leaks about his discussing not just a replacement but a recess appointment — something the Democrats have vowed to prevent.  The question is whether some Republicans might join in that effort to prevent the type of Doomsday scenario laid out in this earlier column.

Many in Washington are baffled by President Trump’s continuing attacks on Attorney General Jeff Sessions, most recently at Tuesday’s news conference with Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri.

Trump is clearly angry that Sessions recused himself from the investigation of Russia’s involvement in the 2016 election, but what does the president hope to gain in a one-sided verbal war with one of his most loyal supporters?  Does the president have a strategy or is he merely venting?

The hope among Republicans is that this tweet storm too shall pass. But there is another possibility, that the president is intentionally pushing his administration past the fail-safe point to engineer the termination of the special counsel investigation by first removing the attorney general.

The costs would be both immediate and potentially prohibitive, but the idea that Trump would act is not so far-fetched. Why would he do it? The reason should chill every Republican on Capitol Hill to the bone. Trump said that “time will tell” in how he deals with Sessions. His failure to answer direct questions on Sessions’ future is telling enough.

First, it is important to state the obvious. Sessions, Trump’s most loyal supporter in the Senate during the presidential campaign, acted entirely appropriately in recusing himself from the Russian investigation, despite Trump’s recent statement that he would never have appointed him if he knew Sessions would recuse himself.

By insisting that Sessions should not have recused, Trump is saying Sessions should have taken an unethical path, ignoring the views of the Justice Department ethics lawyers he consulted.  Similarly, Trump’s suggestion that Sessions should have opened up investigations into the president’s 2016 general election opponent and the Democrats contradicts long-standing rules against political influence over Justice Department investigations.

The renewed attacks on Sessions as “weak” and “beleaguered” and disappointing has convinced many that Trump is trying to get Sessions to voluntarily resign. The conspicuous absence of Sessions from key events, such as the Boy Scout Jamboree attended by other Eagle Scouts in the Cabinet, has fueled the speculation that the attorney general is being sent a clear signal that he is persona non grata.

I believe that Sessions would do a disservice to his department by resigning, but he could conclude that the loss of trust and a working relationship with the president makes his continuation as attorney general dangerous for the country.

That would set the scene for a doomsday scenario.

Here is how it would work. If Trump wants to stop the expansion or even the continuation of the special counsel investigation,  his problem is not really with the attorney general. When Sessions recused himself, his deputy, Rod Rosenstein, gained authority over the Russia investigation and appointed Bob Mueller. If ordered to fire the special counsel he appointed, the assumption is that Rosenstein would either have to be fired or resign (as did his predecessors in the Nixon administration when ordered to fire Archibald Cox). Presumably, Rosenstein’s  subordinates would then follow suit (as was the case in Nixon). It would continue until Trump could find or appoint a new Robert Bork (who as solicitor general finally fired Cox).

Removing Sessions is the simple alternative to that drawn-out and messy prospect. If Sessions leaves, whether he is fired or forced out by Trump’s continuing abuse, the president could appoint an attorney general with no ties to the campaign and no objective reason to recuse himself or herself. He could even make the appointment during a recess and avoid the Senate confirmation process to allow the immediate exercise of authority as attorney general.

Democrats are reportedly moving to block a recess with a filibuster if needed, but Trump has been (thus far unsuccessfully) calling for the Senate to rewrite its rules to restrict the filibuster. If Trump and Senate Republican supporters were successful in changing the rules, there would be no confirmation vote — allowing GOP senators to publicly express outrage but not have to take any action.

The recess appointee could then take over control of the special counsel investigation and either limit its scope or terminate Mueller. Rosenstein would likely resign in protest, but that would merely allow Trump another key recess appointment.

The immediate response to such an action would be calls for the reinstatement of the Independent Counsel Act, but (with both houses in Republican control) Trump may think that he has enough votes to block such a counter move. If so, the only Russia probes remaining would be congressional investigations led by Republicans. Trump could then use the Justice Department to open up investigations of the Clintons and Democrats in their dealings with Russians, Ukrainians and others.

Of course, there would also be immediate calls for the drafting of articles of impeachment, but Trump is a classic margin player in both business and politics. An impeachment effort requires a two-thirds supermajority in the Senate — 67 votes — to remove Trump from office. Math is on his side.

The common assumption in Washington is that the costs of such a strategy would be simply too high. Trump would plummet even further in the polls, and skittish Republicans could easily bolt on Capitol Hill.

But Trump won the 2016 election by constantly defying such assumptions, and those plummeting polls are just what may give him the opportunity to do it again.

Trump could be coming close to developing Christie Syndrome. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie reached record lows in the polls recently at around 15% approval. That is getting precariously close to the margin of error for polling. If he goes any lower, pollsters could just start listing the names of his supporters.

Backed into that corner, Christie responded with the ultimate Italian salute from a beach in Jersey. After the state barred citizens from beaches due to the budget impasse, Christie basked in the sun with his family and then dismissed the anger of his constituents. It became so bad that when Christie recently caught a ball (left handed) at a Mets game and gave the ball to an adorable kid, he was actually booed. Booed. Most politicians have nightmares of such a situation but Christie shows that it can actually be liberating. It is almost impossible to go below 10% because a certain number of polled citizens either love you for being an entertaining car wreck or just mistake you for their favorite singer Meat Loaf.

Trump could reach a Christie stage and conclude that with three years to recover, he has little to lose but much to gain in shutting down the special counsel investigation. Of course, the problem is that the move could hand not one but two houses to the Democrats after the midterm — with a serious threat of impeachment and removal. Yet, that would be then and this is now. Trump might believe that his core of 35%-40% supporters would stick with him, and that’s good enough to keep the GOP in line and even secure the nomination for a second term.

So there is the doomsday scenario based on mutually assured destruction. All doomsday scenarios are based on the belief that despite the horrific losses, you will be one most likely to crawl out of the radioactive wreckage. In other words, the last guy standing wins.

Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, is a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors. Follow him on Twitter: @JonathanTurley

275 thoughts on “The Doomsday Scenario: How Replacing Sessions Could Trigger A Cascading Series Of Unfortunate Events”

  8. Math is on his side? Maybe not. Maybe patriotism is on the other side. You have this notion that since Chump has always worked on the margins, by defying logic or ethics, this will succeed here, too. I’m doubting it. If push should come to shove, not all Republicans will put the party ahead of patriotism. Not all Republicans think it’s OK to brag about grabbing womens’ genitals, making fun of disabled people, insulting women and generally bullying and attempting to intimidate people when he doesn’t get his way. Not all Republicans think it’s OK to put inexperienced, unqualified family members in key positions in the WH. Not all Republicans think it’s OK for a hostile foreign government to hack into emails as a means to sway voters one way or the other. Not all Republicans think it’s OK to take health care away from tens of millions of people for the primary reason of giving tax breaks to medical device manufacturers and millionaires and billionaires. Not all Republicans are unwilling to involve Democrats in fixing problems with Obamacare. Not all Republicans think the Office of President should be used as a weapon against political opponents, or that it’s OK to disenfranchise patriotic transgender military personnel willing to lay down their lives for this country. More Republicans than the current occupant of the WH understand how government works, that the AG and department heads are not the errand boys and girls of the President, that they don’t owe him a pledge of personal loyalty and that demanding that the AG violate the Rules of Professional Conduct solely to stop a criminal investigation is way, way out of line. Every single day, he does more and more shocking, disgusting, un-Presidential things. Eventually, the tide will turn, and that tide will include Republicans, because some of them are, first and foremost, patriots, like Lisa Murkowski, and will put the country and their constituents ahead of the party.

    1. who the f cares about Trump’s grabbing genitals. The more important issue is the DNC cover up – most lately DWS’s guy being arrested. Can we finally see her emails?? That loser serpent installed Paki people who had access to top secret material.

      And her bro is Assistant US Attorney at the Attorney’s office for the District of Columbia who may have shut down the Seth Rich invesigation.

      SICK of the DNC and the liars.

      Independents are NOT gonna vote DEM!!!

      2. You have that right Autumn. Jonathan Gruber admitted what the Left thinks of the average American. The results of that assessment would be election gains, not the substantial losses they’ve had. The American people are witnessing a major political party committing suicide. They are witnessing a massive investigation in search of a crime, all the while actual crimes are not being investigated. Or at least they are not being publically investigated. When the music stops, the DNC will be standing there with their pants down at their ankles.

        MPP

      3. You do not speak for anyone but your loser friends, comrade, so STFU about independents. You are too dense to speak for others.

      4. Because the reality that our President is completely unfit to serve is so less important than these Pravda Faux News red-herrings.

        This is to slow-on-the-uptake autumn

  9. I just wish The Donald would just stand back and take a long deep breath, and take a long objective look at the whole picture. I think it would be good for him and the country.

    1. Realize that The Donald is only interested in looking at himself He is pathologically narcissistic. He only wanted to be President for the power and perceived prestige. He doesn’t care about the good of the country. He needs praise and adulation. He needs to appear to be “winning”, so he really doesn’t care what Congress passes that he can argue is repealing Obamacare, so long as he can take credit for “winning”. The thing that has thrown the monkey wrench into Jeff Sessions’s appointment is the fact that The Donald found out that Mueller can get [or maybe has already gotten] his tax, financial, and business records. That has The Donald running scared because he doesn’t want us to find out that he’s nowhere near as wealthy as he puts on. Also, there are likely some financial entanglements that will make him look bad, or maybe get him into trouble [maybe comparing the financial records with tax returns will reveal some “unreported” income], so now, it’s all the fault of Jeff Sessions for failing to recuse himself, even though the Rules of Professional Conduct require recusal. He’s on the path for creating a constitutional crisis.

  10. Now democrats LOVE Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

    How did that come about?

    I don’t trust that devious (or is it shrewd) President Trump.

    1. We don’t love Sessions. We just don’t like the way The Donald is treating him in public.

  11. Andy McCarthy –

    “Trump can simply instruct the AG to amend his recusal so that it conforms to the letter of the law. According to the Special Counsel law (excerpted below), a special counsel will be appointed if there is a criminal investigation. The current investigation is a counter-intelligence investigation, which, according to McCarthy, by law cannot have a crime as its focus.”
    ____________________________________________________________________________________

    “There is no criminal investigation related to Russian collusion; therefore, appointment of the special counsel was and is not in compliance with the Special Counsel law.”

    “…The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted…”

    Sessions must amend his recusal.

    Sessions must impose the legal parameters on Special Investigator Mueller.

    “…amend the recusal to conform to the regulation.”

    Rosenstein could be directed to consider whether his appointment of a special counsel complies with the regulations that limit such appointments to criminal investigations or prosecutions as to which the Justice Department is conflicted.

      1. Because no one can prove a negative. You will now, along with calling people racists when they aren’t, call people criminals when they aren’t. Even the original publcation of police reports in 1927 doesn’t seem to change your mind, does it?

        Go ahead we are getting used to you playing the race card, race baiting, and calling people criminals without any proof and despite facts that prove otherwise.

        1. If affirmative action imposes a bias, is affirmative action racist?

          Let me check my Constitution for the section that gives government the authority to dictate operations, including hiring, firing and compensation, at my business which is my private property. Nope. Can’t find it.

          1. George, I understood affirmative action at the time though not in the fashion it was implemented. I agree that affirmative action, despite its good intentions, can be called racist when used in an inappropriate fashion.

          2. Newsflash: that train has left the station. Google “necessary and proper clause.”

            This is to constitutional-scholar George

          1. The difference between you and I is I don’t care who prints the article and for the most part who wrote the article. I care about what the participants actually say. This is not supposed to be a criminal investigation and if it becomes one then one has to start thinking about what the crime is. Mueller hasn’t said it is a criminal investigation and neither has the assistant attorney general. We do need a criminal investigation into Debbie Wasserman Shultz, Lois Lerner, Hillary Clinton, the former head of the IRS, the intelligence service, etc. I am quite confident that Trump will be innocent of anything having to do with Russia. I don’t think you can say the same about the names I mention but then again maybe you can because you accuse people of racism without proof and when the actual data is shown to you, you refuse to acknowledge it and appologize. Your type of justice is not all that different than the justice the KKK meted out.

            1. The investigation is supposed to go wherever it leads, there is a wide mandate, you could easily find it, the key words to note are “Any Matters” should you make the effort. It already apparently is a criminal investigation (not necessarily targeting Trump… yet). Certainly Flynn and Manafort have much to fear. Technically although theses matters may not be prosecuted, Sessions and Kushner have perjured themselves. Ivanka has consulted a criminal lawyer about Russian matters. I don’t have to make anything up when the truth is sufficient. Convince yourself there’s no criminal investigation going on, the Senators that have been briefed say there is.

              You keep bringing race into conversations having nothing to do with it. I have no problem at all talking about race (and racists) when applicable. You seem to use it as a distraction.

              1. That is not how things are supposed to be, but like the KKK you prefer to be prosecutor, judge and jury. Race has everything to do with our conversations since you have taken your race baiting too far by playing the race card libelling others. Appologize for knowlingly accusing a dead person who cannot defend himself of being a racist based upon no data. One uses the term racist very judiciously unless they wish to demean all people that suffered from racism and that is exactly what you are doing.

                I note much of your rhetoric above is saying the same type of trash. “Kushner have perjured themselves” perjury is a willful act. Where is your proof. The same about Ivanka. Your logic is because she hired a criminal attorney she is a criminal. That is what innocent people do when there are distateful people like you attacking them.

                1. The form Kushner has now revised several times says, “Under penalty of perjury.” I was willing to overlook the first literally over a hundred previously unreported foreign contacts. At some point you have to consider the possibility he lied.
                  I didn’t say Ivanka is a criminal, she wisely consulted a criminal attorney because THERE IS AN ONGOING CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION!

                  1. Your wording intentionally leads to unfounded conclusions. That too tells us what type of person you are.

                2. That “dead person” you accused me of vilifying with “no data” has been sued twice (along with the current President) by the Federal Government for racial discrimination. There’s plenty of data, you just don’t acknowledge it.

                  1. I don’t know the man. I only know the evidence you produced at the time. Based upon a NYTimes story with the police record from 1927 you concluded he was guilty of racism when a fight broke out.

                    The news article says nothing of the kind. Some people were arrested and charged. They didn’t even mention what they were fighting about. Because the KKK was involved you purposely linked Fred Trump to racism. Unfortuantely the police report clearly stated that unlike the others he was released and generally such a release lets normal people conclude that the individual was an innocent bystander until proven otherwise.

                    That didn’t suit your needs to cry racism and blame Donald Trump for racism because as you said earlier it runs in families. Said like a true racist.

                    1. I produced a rather lengthy list at the time, people have chosen to challenge various portions and perhaps you missed the original post. If I lumped Trump in with the Klan members it just might have something to do with the fact they all had the same attorney. Maybe the attorney represented Trump out of the goodness of his heart. BAsed on the totality of evidence. Yes I’m satisfied he racist, along with misogynist and homophobic. I’d be happy to document those as well if you need be although the Access Video tapes showing Donald in his own words and his recent Transgender Ban from the military should serve just fine. Ask for more though and for you I’ll happily provide it.

                    2. enigma – there is no proof that Trump is homophobic or that he is a racist. There is more proof that you are a racist and homophobe than he is. However, it is my considered opinion that you are neither. You just read racism into things because you want it to be that way. You have a reading bias and you should be careful about it.

                    3. So far if I recall correctly, I have stated that a total of five people (including one on this board) are racist. While I have a far greater number of reasons than practical to list. I’ll agree it’s in the reading. There are those and I don’t know if you’re included that will never read racism in a persons actions and comments. Certainly one can reach that conclusion too quickly or erroneously. As certain, one can explain away that which is right before their eyes. Is there a person in the public eye based on statements and actions that you can identify as racist or do you believe it’s a thing of the past?

                    4. Enigma, you produced a lengthy list of items that contained allegations without the proof. Tying anyone (including a dead man, who cannot defend himself) to racist acts without proof is reprehensible and demeans the suffering of all those that faced racist actions which go deeper than simple discrimination.

                      I don’t tie the other acts that Democrats and you seem to find the equivalent to racism unless or until those acts threaten one’s life and substantial liberty. Racism kills. How you can tie all these things together and make accusations without proof is beyond my comprehension.

                  2. “There’s plenty of data”

                    So you say, but does the data prove anything and does it prove racism? Immediately just like you did with the police report you link a person to racism (a disgusting habit demeaning all the people that have suffered from racism) once again not bothering to see if the claim is justified. I know at least one of the claims that had to do with housing that you may be talking about. Immediately you jump on the racism claim when in the case I refer to black landlords were doing exactly the same thing. Whether black or white all the landlords are looking for one thing, profit. But since in this case it so happens to be Donald Trump’s father, so you immediately link it to racism and call him a racist because as you say “there is plenty of data” (with unknown validity) and then you extend that racism to another person, Donald Trump. You would make an excellent executioner for any murderous dictator around the world for you could justify killing Mother Theresa.

                    1. Donald Trump was the President of the company sued twice by the Justice Department. They signed a Consent decree (which they violated after the first suit) and paid a settlement. Donald is proud however because he “never admitted guilt.” The documentation of that thing that “had to do with housing” is readily available for anyone willing to look.

                    2. enigma – companies sign these consent decrees all the time. It is government extortion. The important thing is if the principals are required to admit guilt.

                    4. enigma – failure to admit guilt is human nature, we have been doing it since we were kids. 😉 Still, failure to admit guilt does not mean one is guilty, they could as well be innocent.

                    5. But they were actually doing the things they were charged with according to their own managers. Marking the applications of black people with a “C” for colored and refusing to rent to them. They continued even after the first settlement. Refusing to admit guilt doesn’t make them not guilty.

                    6. enigma – agreed, however not admitting guilty does not make them guilty. Charges still have to be proved.

                    7. You seem to be taking a strictly legal approach which frankly doesn’t keep them from being every bit of what I say he is. There are affidavits from his managers (and no I’m not going to find them for you and patterns which any reasonable person would acknowledge. Should you wish to read some of the details here’s more reporting. One thing I wouldn’t take at face value is Trump saying it’s a lie, his word isn’t the best.

                      http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/another-housing-discrimination-lawsuit-donald-trump/

                      http://www.npr.org/2016/09/29/495955920/donald-trump-plagued-by-decades-old-housing-discrimination-case

                      I avoided the Washington Post (which had multiple stories) I’m sure you could obtain the full 389 page FBI Report through a Freedom of Information Act request if raw data is required for you to have an opinion.

                    8. enigma – jeez, even WaPo is better than Mother Jones. They are so far left they are neighbors to the Communists.

                    9. If you think there’s bias then adjust for that. The reporting and quotes is still real. Deny, deny, deny. I provided an NPR story as well, How many facts do you dismiss because the source doesn’t please you. Get the FBI report and bash that as well.

                    10. enigma – NPR has been to the left since Car Talk went political. And of all people, you, as a black man, should be cautious about anything coming out of the FBI.

                    13. You need the raw data, I was content with the direct quotes from Trump and his managers. There is no context that will change the essence of what they said and did.

                    14. Explanation of the housing market in NYC.

                      I remember the real estate market in NYC in that time frame. It was politically popular to claim landlords were discriminating, not maintaining their properties etc. That is how politicians got elected and created extra cash for the city through fines.

                      It was so bad under John Lindsay that in one year 100,000 units were turned into the city by landlords who gave up units they paid for because it was impossible for them to survive. The city couldn’t do a better job and couldn’t manage the housing so they turned back ownership and forgave a lot of fines, taxes etc. just so that the city didn’t have to board up buildings and have a housing crisis.

                      The city also worried about minority housing and was trying to push welfare housing into many communities unfairly hoping landlords and the communities would pay the costs. Those costs can financially destroy buildings along with neighborhoods. It wasn’t color that counted rather crime, upkeep and lack of payment.

                      Enter what appears to be one of your cases.

                      “Donald Trump’s ascent in his family’s business, after his 1968 graduation from business school, came as allegations of race discrimination were mounting ***against landlords across New York City.*** *** Housing bias had become a major policy issue in Congress.***” (It was a major method of garnering votes.)

                      The claims were virtually against ALL landlords in the city of New York, not just the Trumps, but they were prominent and had large holdings so they hit the newspapers. The government couldn’t make their claims stick. That is why there weren’t even minimal payments in the settlement. Additionally there was a countersuit against the government for $100 Million claiming that the government “was trying to force the company to lease apartments to people on welfare.”

                      There was no financial or other significant settlement. No penalty, no violation. No discrimination. The Trumps agreed to what all landlords have to follow, that they would not violate the Fair Housing law. That is like a person on the street agreeing not to murder anyone. There was no victory for any party and like always each party said they won.

                      The truth is that aside from the cost paid to lawyers by Trump and the government the whole episode ended as if nothing ever happened because nothing did.

                    15. Paul, this is a game NYC played and plays all the time. Under Democratic type leadership (extorting the “rich) the City almost went bankrupt. As soon as a Mayor is elected that upholds traditional American classical liberal values the City thrives.

                      Rent control in NYC probably is one of the major factors that caused NYC rental prices to climb as high as they have. There is no way for government to substantially interfere with preferences.

                    16. If a black landlord and a white landlord have identical apartment buildings next to one another with an identical number of blacks in each building that doesn’t meet the proportional racial numbers desired by the housing department which one is the racist?

                    17. “jeez, even WaPo is better than Mother Jones.”

                      Paul, Mother Jones feels it doesn’t require proof for anything. I once dealt with a video on Mother Jones and then read their transcript of a small part that said something completely different and Mother Jones wasn’t embarrassed by it. I thouoght Enigma was better, but I guess not.

                    18. “The FBI is slow to come after the wealthy, they spent 389 pages in the Trump’s. You said you liked raw data”

                      After 389 pages including testimonies and reports the FBI still couldn’t prove their case. Using your logic the government must have been guilty of extortion because there was a $100 Million dollar case against them and they settled both cases without victory.

                      You have an odd understanding of what raw data is. Raw data is what is contained in those 389 pages, not that there were 389 pages. I am curious, what you do or did you do for a living. Obviously you haven’t been trained at all in dealing with raw data or anything that dealt with scientific theory or proof.

                3. Will you still be here when the indictments are returned?

                  This is to disappearing allan

                  1. Mark M., We will probably all be dead before the investigation is totally finished. You will probably have gotten an advancement from assistant file clerk to file clerk before retirement. Finally learning your alphabet will have led to that advancement.

                    I will be enjoying myself till the end which is what I always do. I like listening to foolish people.

            2. Btw, I will read material without regard to the source although some require great discernment. Even a hugely biased piece from either side of the spectrum usually have some underlying basis which might spur further investigation. I accept little as fact without further confirmation.
              There are those here who immediately decry certain major news sites as “Fake news” which is why I noted the Times as being a right wing source.

              1. You read whatever promotes your personal ideology and you read it with tunnel vision. Then you take words out of context and unfoundly declare others to be racists or criminals. Opinion pieces that you like are what constitutes your proof.

                1. Now you’re professing to tell me what I read. Crystal ball much? When I say I read some of everything I’m quite serious, you should try it. BTW, some people actually are racists and criminals. While you may not agree with my conclusions, nothing I say is unfounded.

                  1. No, I am not trying to tell you what you read, just what type of person you are.

                  2. enigmainblackcom, You are an amazing person. You managed to maintain non-violent communication through-out this long thread, a very difficult thing to do when your antagonists deserve to be pied. Of course, pieing the ignorant doesn’t help relieve their ignorance. One can only wish they re-read your comments and learn from them.

                    1. I’m going to generalize and say most have no interest in being exposed to information and a point of view they aren’t aware of or haven’t considered. There are a number of highly intelligent people here that are willfully obtuse.

                      I do this mostly for entertainment and occasionally for material for my own blog posts. While there’s room to disagree with what I’m saying. I have documentation for everything I say. When Allan finds out there actually is a criminal investigation of the Trump Campaign/Administration going on he’ll be dumbfounded. Paul gets to the edge of accepting new information but finds a way to deny it. Squeeky… well I can always hope. Mostly I choose not to be run off by those that would see me gone. Thanks for saying hello!

                    2. Bettykath, I await your quotes of things that are factually incorrect. I forgot. You never have that type of information. I await your quotes of what was proven factually correct by Enigma. I forgot. You never have that type of information either. You deal solely with rhetoric absent of factual information.

                    3. There is no question Enigma you have documentation for things that you say, but you have absolutely no proof of the conclusions and that is what counts.

  12. Take note that virtually everything Trump does causes the left to overreact. This overreaction though seemingly bad for Trump really isn’t so bad because Trump keeps moving forward. Even his tweets about Sessions that caused negative reactions from both the left and right have changed leftist dynamics. They were hitting hard on Sessions, but not so any more. In fact now they have some praise for Sessions. Will that help Sessions clean the swamp. I think so. I also think Turley misses this likely possibililty.

    Are Trump supporters leaving Trump in droves? No. In fact I believe many are more supportive now than they were before. Are those that didn’t support Trump, but couldn’t stomach the other, leaving Trump? I don’t think so. Same recognition that Trump needs all the help he can get to get rid of the swamp and that may include significant numbers of Bernie supporters. Americans favor David (Trump) instead of the swamp (Goliath) and the left doesn’t realize that the real David in todays terms carried a gun into a knife fight.

    1. Haha. The fool won’t be able to drain a kiddie-pool with his shiny new 36% approval rating.

      This is to swimming-in-the-muck allan

      1. No Mark, my pool is pristine. I leave the muck swimming to those that know no better. That means you. I’m pretty happy with what Trump has done till today. An improved economy, greater employment, salaries on the increase, illegal aliens cut in half, M-13 that kills Americans being removed, Gorsuch, improvements at the VA, overturning Obama executive orders with about 127 Trump executive orders, pending indictments of leakers, etc. That is in the first 6 months.

        Yes, you can continue to swim in your HRC muck while I enjoy a breath of fresh air.

        1. Excellent. I will agree that we have “pending indictments.”

          this is to”Sieg heil”-president-pence george.

  13. People keep speculating about why Trump is doing this or that or wondering what his thinking or strategy is as he demonstrates to the entire world he has zero impulse control and no sense of his responsibility as President to the law or the nation. The man is mentally disturbed and as obviously unfit and dysfunctional as one could imagine a President to be without having a serious brain injury or the like which made him unconscious. Trump is a sick man and by sick I mean mentally ill. Nothing during his Presidency has indicated that he is intellectually or morally capable to serve as President of the United States. It’s time to stop pretending the man is okay. He isn’t. As David Letterman recently pointed out “If he were Manager at Dairy Queen he’d have been fired long ago. He needs to be put in a home.”

    1. Nothing during his Presidency has indicated that he is intellectually or morally capable to serve as President of the United States.

      Neil Gorsuch! But then that depends on your worldview, now doesn’t it?

      1. The Gorsuch appointment was outsourced. Can’t really give credit to Trump for that. It was McConnell that got it through by changing the rules. There are a number of things that Trump unfortunately has gotten done. Primarily through the Justice Department ironically and the EPA.

        1. The Gorsuch appointment was outsourced. Can’t really give credit to Trump for that.

          Of course not. Since the nomination is approved by the President, he outsourced that responsibility to whom, the Russians? Do you guys even realize how laughable your bias has become?

          1. Who hunted down and killed Obama Been Loudin’ Wit My Boombox? Who got credit?

          2. Olly, have you ever considered some of the meanings behind bias? Bigoted, prejudiced, where bigoted implies racist and discriminatory. It’s amazing how some people seem to fit those categories in virtually everything they say.

            1. it’s laughable how little you know about the man you worship.

              That won’t stop me from studying the gospels to learn more about Jesus Christ. If you find that laughable, then so be it.

              Regarding President Trump, I’ve outsourced that.

          4. Olly, Trump had a lot of choices to pick from more than just the ones on his list. He chose wisely for a replacement on the Honorable Justice Scalia’s seat. Scalia was a brilliant scholar. It appears that Gorsuch believes in the Constitution and that will be an asset in future years. He also has a tremendous reputation among Democrats and Republicans. Now that he is on the bench because Trump chose him him suddenly his reputation amongst Democrats falls. The Democrats are very fickle.

            So be it. Gorsuch will protect America. Now if only Ginsberg and Kennedy retire and Trump picks as well as he did the first time we will have a court that will solidly stand for the Constitution.

            1. I agree allan. But apparently The Heritage Foundation put all the names in a hat and told President Trump to pick one. Word has it, the 19 names in the hat all said Neil Gorsuch. Shhh! Don’t tell President Trump.

      2. He didn’t even know Neil Gorsuch–he let the Republicans recommend him because he wanted to appear to be “winning”. The Repubs wanted someone on the bench who sides with big business, big pharma, big insurance, criminal prosecutors, and against ordinary folk. Gorsuch is no feather in The Donald’s hairpiece.

        1. He didn’t even know Neil Gorsuch

          That’s called good leadership Natacha. Should he have nominated any one of the attorneys he has on retainer, you know, the ones he knows? Geez! I get that you are ideologically opposed to everything Trump. But if you’re against Neil Gorsuch, then you clearly are opposed to a constitutionalist on the bench.

    2. STAT News published, “Trump Wasn’t Always So Linguistically Challenged, What Would Explain the Change”.
      It provides an interesting analysis. Those experts interviewed all identified a decline but, attributed it to different factors.

      1. I actually heard Trump on numerous occasions years ago and I don’t note any significant change. It would be nice if you could offer a bit of proof instead of copying a headline.

        He talks off the cuff and is not a politician. That might be what is confusing you and those you rely upon. Did you think Obama was stupid when he said there were 57 states? He was speaking off the cuff and isn’t a student of American history or government. However I think that mistatement by Obama and many others like it should have made people wonder.

    3. The man is mentally disturbed and as obviously unfit and dysfunctional as one could imagine a President to be without having a serious brain injury or the like which made him unconscious.

      I love the smell of lefty projection in the mid-Afternoon.

    5. Horuss, I guess while picking between your toes you became a psychiatrist and the suddenly you saw God who told you how great your intellect was and you decided you could make psychiatric diagnosis by simply rubbing those toes.

      Wow Horuss, you are something else.

      1. My argument is that Trump is a disgrace as President. The number one and only priority is removing him from office. Turley talks about being “disturbed” and “baffled” by Trump’s actions but those words mean nothing. Turley has ZERO integrity. All he cares about is promoting his cottage industry as conservative pundit and columnist.

          1. Who pays you loser? Do you accept rubles? So much for free speech, you are pathetic.

    2. Is Turley actually rooting for Trump to succeed?!

      Speaking of scum. What constitutional law professor with any integrity roots for failure of a sitting President? If you followed Turley you would see in nearly everything he writes or says that he supports any President that respects the rule of law and separation of powers. If he’s not taking your side in these debates, then you may want to reconsider your understanding of the subject.

        1. I think Turley has pretty much taken both sides of every issue he talks about.

          Good for you. I’ll alert the media.

      2. Trump has ZERO respect for the rule of law or separation of powers. What fantasy world are you living in?

        1. Well then he’s going to be real pissed at The Heritage Foundation for picking Neil Gorsuch for him.

          1. LOL Again! Olly, you have just earned yourself a spot on Saturday Night Live. With lines like that you and your sidekick LS would be a hit.

    3. Issac take note of what LS says. “Turley is scum” Do you see what I mean about leftists attempting to dehumanize those that disagree even partially? (Turley is center left). No proof, no nothing. That Issac reminds me of what you asked about, the Hitler Youth movement.

  16. Sessions should have told Trump that he would recuse himself before he took the job and Trump has every right to fire him for failing to do so. Rosenstein should be fired for appointing a clearly biased Mueller. McCabe should have been fired a long time ago for corruption. The establishment will not like these moves, but his supporters(even unhappy ones, like myself) will fully support him because it’s clearly the right thing to do.

    For those calling for impeachment, my question is “what crime has Trump committed?” If your answer is “obstruction of justice,” then what crime was committed that he’s now obstructing? The cold truth is that there is ZERO evidence of a crime in the first place. No amount of bloviating can change that simple fact. The only places where I can find clear evidence of a crime(s) has to do with the Clintons…and there’s a lot of evidence of multiple crimes.

    You can kick and scream like a toddler that doesn’t get what he wants(impeachment), but that isn’t going to get you very far with the adults(voting public).

    1. A fundamental question is whether the Attorney General swears to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land, or does he swear unquestioning fealty to the President. If the President says, “If I say it’s Constitutional, it’s Constitutional,” does that make it so?

      1. Only the Supreme Court judges what is Constitutional. The proper avenue for these political “investigations” of the President and his staff is through exclusively open sessions of the Congress. If there is cause for impeachment(I have seen no cause whatsoever so far), then the House can proceed with it’s Constitutional power to impeach/indict. There should be no secret evidence whatsoever.

        It’s not a secret that the AG swears to uphold the Constitution. That same Constitution give the President the power to fire the AG for any reason.

      2. Jay S – if the SC says it is Constitutional, it is Constitutional.

        1. I can think of a few instances where the SC said something was Constitutional which were immoral and unethical and later reversed. They are as political a body as the Senate, maybe not as bad as the House.

          1. enimga – it is Constitutional until the SC says it is not Constitutional. Does that make you feel better. 🙂

            1. Neither way makes a difference. It seems the new standard now is something is Constitutional until an administration is able to stack the court and change it.

              1. enigma – you are exactly right. The Constitution is what the SC says it is TODAY. May not be that way tomorrow.

                  1. enigma – just have to realize the goalposts are not set in concrete. 😉

                  2. If the Constitution is irrellevent as you say what is the nature of our government?

                    1. Interesting question. The Constitution is still theoretically the governing document but it proves highly malleable, bending particularly to the whims of the rich and powerful. As far as the nature of our government, in my opinion it was set up to protect the interests of the rich, male, white landowners with all others having gained rights grudgingly and not always to the same degree. Our government is a Republic where representatives of the people make decisions but the rules deciding how the representatives are chosen and who gets to choose have varied greatly over time. Currently, gerrymandering, redistricting and voter suppression, and the electoral college all serve to keep this country from being a one person, one vote Democracy (which was never intended).

    2. Discretion is the better part of valor.

      Sessions should have recused himself

      and

      Sessions should NOT have recused himself.

      Sessions should have remained as the firewall protecting his king.

  17. The Democrats vow to not allow anything. Nothing new there. But how could they not allow if they are in recess. With two other confirmed choices presently in the Justice Department?

    Which brings up a thought. Since Sessions today announced a major crackdown on leaking could this whole scenario be what it looks like? A way to keep Congress ‘in session’ since they are behind on three important legislations and a few thousand appointment confirmations? Democrats going to block that? Or just not show up like they are doing now.

    Would anyone notice?

  18. Two Saturday Night Massacre-like events by Republican Presidents in less than 50 years? Why does the party attract a disproportionate number of politicians who abuse power in unprecedented ways?
    A Republican politician in Montana who pleads guilty to assaulting a reporter…..Chris Christie’s staff and the traffic cones…former speaker, Hasert…

    1. Two Saturday Night Massacre-like events by Republican Presidents in less than 50 years?

      Two prosecutors get fired in a 44 year time-span. How brutal.

  20. How can Turley write this and not call for Trump’s impeachment as Tribe/Painter/Eisen have? We have clearly reached a point where it is demonstrably clear that Trump simply does not respect the Rule of Law and is engaged in an unprecedented effort to undermine and deconstruct this foundation of our Constitution and democracy.

    Now ordinarily, to make this charge against a sitting POTUS would be deemed reactionary and conspiratorial, but here are Sen. Graham’s own words today on Trump and the rule of law:

    “Any effort to go after Mueller could be the beginning of the end of the Trump presidency…Some of the suggestions the President is making go way beyond what is acceptable in a rule of law nation” — Sen. Graham

    What Turley has written here completely affirms Sen. Grahams views. Trump poses a direct threat threat to the rule or law of our nation — and yet Turley REFUSES to call for his impeachment?

    WHY?

    1. Turley goes on TV and “acts” like he cares for the law. What he writes is for the goosestepping arm wearing fascists that pays his bills. Its a shame, it really is. When Obama was in office and HRC at state he wrote anything and everything how lawless and wrong they were, now with Trump…………crickets. This site has become totalitarian by any level of understanding of any descent political discourse. Now watch the haters come out in 3..2…1………

      1. Love your work Fishwings. You deserve a hug. As a conservative that is concerned about the rule of law and the corruption throughout the political class, please do not put an end to your complaining. We need to keep this going so that ALL of the corruption is exposed.

        Right?

        MPP

      2. We don’t hate, FishWings, we just ask for proof and have to constantly explain the difference between opinion and fact. You just don’t get it despite how patient we are.

        1. If you’re asking for “proof” then you’re finally accepting the need for Mueller and all his busy-beaver investigators. You’ve made progress today.

          This is to seeing-the-light allan

Comments are closed.