Singular Demotion: Trump Tells Citizens “Ask Jeff Session!”

jeff_sessions_official_portraitYou know you are on the outs with the President when he not only unleashes an army of citizen trolls on you, but demotes you from plural to singular.   President Trump posted another controversial tweet this morning in asking why he is being investigated but not his predecessor or the Democrats. He tells supporters to Just “Ask Jeff Session.”  Attorney General Sessions appears to still be the persona non grata and, if anything, diminishing by the day.

The President tweeted:

Question: If all of the Russian meddling took place during the Obama Administration, right up to January 20th, why aren’t they the subject of the investigation? Why didn’t Obama do something about the meddling? Why aren’t Dem crimes under investigation? Ask Jeff Session!

There are in fact calls for Democrats to be investigated and evidence that Special Counsel Robert Mueller may indeed have looked into the lobbying effort of Tony Podesta and his Podesta Group.

The merits of this argument (which are being advanced by others with little need of presidential involvement) is beside the point.  The repeated digs at Trump’s own Attorney General are disconcerting and inappropriate.  This follows reports that Trump has discussed firing Sessions and giving a recess appointment to his successor.  Trump is clearly still 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?  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.

It is simply bizarre for a president to organize a pressure campaign against his own attorney general as if he is still running for office.  Moreover, Sessions is no deep-state mole.  He did the President a service by taking the ethical route.  Had Trump not fired Comey, it is likely that the Russian investigation would have been concluded by now.  The correct approach was to stand aside and let the investigation run its course.  The President continues to reject that advice and lash out at Sessions.  What is missing is any discernible strategic or tactical goal achieved by these tweets.



137 thoughts on “Singular Demotion: Trump Tells Citizens “Ask Jeff Session!””

  1. What Trump Tweeted:

    “Question: If all of the Russian meddling took place during the Obama Administration, right up to January 20th, why aren’t they the subject of the investigation? Why didn’t Obama do something about the meddling? Why aren’t Dem crimes under investigation? Ask Jeff Session!”

    First, the Russian information warfare against The United States continues apace and unabated. Second, the Obama Administration was not favored by the Russian information warfare. Third, the Obama Administration was disparaged by the Russian information warfare. Fourth, Trump was favored by the Russian information warfare. Fifth, Trump was not disparaged by the Russian information warfare. Fifth, Hillary Clinton was disparaged by the Russian information warfare. Sixth, Hillary Clinton was not favored by the Russian information warfare.

    Seventh, a POTUS who calls for the investigation of the opposition party for unspecified crimes without providing substantial and credible evidence to warrant such a politically motivated investigation is a POTUS who knows damned well that he cannot successfully defend himself any other way than disparaging the investigation into Russian information warfare against The United States whilst favoring the unabated continuation of Russian information warfare against The United States.

    The “collusion” is what’s happening now.

    Trump will not garner the Republican nomination for President in 2020–let alone be reelected to a second term of office as The POTUS–no matter how much heavy-lifting to the contrary the Russian information warfare operation might bring to bear in favor of Trump and against all others. In fact, the harder the Russians try to get Trump reelected the more certain it will become to all concerned that The Russians have already doomed Trump to one, and only one, term of office as your President of the United States.

    1. A central question posed in the tweet was ” Why didn’t Obama do something about the meddling?”
      None of the seven talking points presented by Late4Dinner have anything to do with that question.
      Indeed, the fact that “The Obama administration was not favored by the “Russian information warfare” and the claim that “the Obama administration was disparaged by by the Russian information warfare” would make it seem MORE likely, not less likely, that the Obama administration would react aggressively against “the Russian information warfare”.
      The second major question in the Trump tweet was “Why aren’t the Dem crimes under investigation?”
      This question/ issue has been previously addressed here on these threads by a number of those commenting.
      Leaving aside, for now, any attempt to review all of that history, the fact is that the Mueller investigation is targeting one campaign of an election year that had a number of “questionable” activities.
      E.G, that campaign featured a political party hiring a law firm to hire an opposition research firm to hire a British spy to hire Russian sources to gather opposition research against the candidate of the other party.
      It featured some extremely unusual FBI activity that is well known….I don’t habe the time right now to even summarize (once again) that aspect of the of the 2016 campaign.
      Pretending that there was not a lot of “questionable” activity by both campaigns in 2016 does not alter the facts, but it often does modify blindly partisan talking points.
      The involvement of the DNC/ Hillary campaign in the Russian opposition research against Trump have been, and are being, investigated.
      As is the behaviour of the top leadership of the FBI in the 2016 campaign.
      As is overall Russian meddling in our elections.
      So far, only the latter of those three seems to be targeted by the Special Counsel’s investigation, and only in connection with possible criminal cooperation/ coordination of the Trump campaign.
      I’ve mentioned before that the resources of the Special Counsel’s investigation are far greater than those of Congressional investigative committees, which are investigating the activities of both campaigns in the 2016 election.
      I think that the perception that there is an “unbalanced” approach to laying everything out there re the 2016 campaigns in largely justified.
      Pointing these things out isn’t a matter of “undermining the Mueller investigation”…..that accusation is a half-assed talking point that is as automatic and worthless as the screeching “Pravda Faux News” like a chorus of myna birds.
      There is a widespread, and largely justifiable, suspicion that these investigations are not as comprehensive or even-handed as they should

  2. The power President Trump wields is almost unparalleled. He makes one typo and millions of individuals go into a state of great agitation, a sentence or two and they surrender themselves to their emotions when they could instead devote their faculties to other ideas of benefit themselves or others.

    The tweet is mightier than the sword.

    1. It wasn’t a typo, Darren. It was the first demotion.
      Watch for “Sessio”
      then ” Sessi”
      then “Sess”
      etc. in the next series of demotions. 😉

  3. FWIW

    DOJ vs Department of “Just Us” (peons) – two tiered justice system – NSA whistle blower Binney talks about “parallel construction”

    1. When did you get the theology degree with the minor in good versus evil, Chuck? A few questions for your religion from we infidels:
      1. If a voter votes for the above-referenced “cabal” are they:
      A. Evil
      B. Deluded
      C. Just someone you disagree with

      2. Evil is:
      A. The opposite of good
      B. Bad spelling for he first name of stunt driver Knievel
      C. Just something that you disagree with

      3. Dissing people for their views that are opposite of yours without any factual argument is:
      A. Evil
      B. Leftist protocol
      C. Just something you agree with

      1. It’s so encouraging to see mespo interact with a random commentator with such words of impression.

        Great thought went into mespo’s outline of inferences, both deductive and inductive — stunning in its admixture, cunning in the traps laid. His tripe reads like squeek’s now, bellicose with little footing.

          1. My point is that mespo has beguiled himself to the toxic banter that exists here — his words carry the same weight as squeeks — which is not much. He quit thinking long ago — this is my opinion.

            Did you love squeeks seven chapters of pretensions of writing in insulting enigma? You probably did, I’m sure you thought it was genius.

            You show little in your words given your constant reminders of your schooling.

            I’ll say it again — your a fool.

              1. I’ll say it again — your a fool.

                Too quick to post — you’re a fool.


                A stunningly profound example of the “right” way to win an argument in contrast to my own humorless, vitrolic style. WWAS you are the Master Po to my Kwai Chang. Zūnzhòng!

              2. WWAS,

                The commentator Chuck Aspinwall has been a regular for awhile, just not a prolific poster. As for MESPO, MAN- you should have seen this place circa 2010 (before Nick Spinelli broke on through to the other side). I recall finding my own opinions opposite that of Mespo, although his comments in particular were still excellent.

                Although Nick S arriving was nothing like the splashdown that Inga made. DAMN. That was quite the opera. Mespo is an actual thoughtful man, and he seemed to have changed (or was it, his allies abandoned him and many of the principles he held) over the next few years into the regular champion for freedom, rule of law, and equal opportunity for all.

                Hard to read the archives if you didn’t watch it play out, but it has been quite a good show. Enlightening, thought provoking, emotional and logical all together.

                Apologies if I have mischaracterized you at all, Mespo, but my own perception was that we once stood on opposite sides, and now you’re behind me, for the better.

                Also shout out to Squeeky- you rock! Keep em’ coming, you bring an excellent and vibrant energy to the comment section.

                1. Steg:

                  WWAS, and I really don’t disagree much — all sarc aside. You and I also have common ground. See my piece and Dreden and Doubletaps. I still see the rule of law as paramount but I also see the challenges from the right and left. When the right was in ascendance I criticized them — a lot; when it’s the left is rising I do the same. I’m like Disraeli aligning myself with the second most powerful group of the day. I find that to be the most pragmatic approach to commentary and the most fun. Nobody wants a cheerleader.

                  1. Mespo- I think that is why I find your comments so enlightening and worthwhile. I will look up your piece- thank you.

                2. Thank you, Steg!!! And might I add, what other Legal Website gets original short stories??? Love it or hate it, just remember what Voltaire said, “Si nous ne trouvons pas des choses agréables, nous trouverons du moins des choses nouvelles.”

                  Which is French for, “yes the chosen news of the past is agreeable, but the chosen news of man is in novels!”

                  Squeeky Fromm
                  Girl Reporter

            1. Nothing the squeeKKK posts is surprising; that poster doesn’t even feign concealment of the overall goal.

            2. WWAS – I did not like Squeeky’s very, very short story about enigma. I consider enigma a friend. However, I also think enigma can defend himself against Squeeky, which he did.

              btw, it’s you’re not your a fool. If it is any help my high school class voted me the person most likely get us into a war with the U.S.S.R. They had confidence in me. 😉 That was June 1961.

              1. Paul:

                Enigma surely can (and will) ably defend his own space, but WWAS feels the need to rush to his defense like some careless nanny seeing her young charge exposed to a snarling playground dog. Call it the bigotry of low expectations, if you will.

                One of the hallmarks of the Left is their arrogant belief that they are the cavalry and everyone else is either damsel or Indian.

                1. mespo – the problem is the left doesn’t realize they are really Custer at the Little Big Horn. 😉

              2. Actually, I like Enigma, too! He takes my gibes with good humor. Give me enough time with him, and I will get him off all the Black Apologetics and Mass Incarceration stuff. He could become the next Larry Elder, or Jason Riley, and write a best selling book!

                Squeeky Fromm
                Girl Reporter

                  1. We all like and respect Enigma.

                    I like the fact he can put together complete sentences. He can also spell the word the, comment without open hostility and is not redundant in his replies telling us this is for… Respect? If he could just one time call out injustice regardless of party and race, then I would have some respect for him.

                    1. I like Enigma as well. To Olly’s point though, he jumps to race in the same manner as one who only has a hammer, so everything he sees is a nail.

            3. WWAS:

              “It’s so encouraging to see mespo interact with a random commentator with such words of impression.

              Great thought went into mespo’s outline of inferences, both deductive and inductive — 𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐝𝐦𝐢𝐱𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞, 𝐜𝐮𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐬 𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐝. 𝐇𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐩𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐬𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐞𝐤’𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐰, 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐥𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠.”


              “It’s so encouraging to see m̶e̶s̶p̶o̶ WWAS interact with a r̶a̶n̶d̶o̶m̶ commentator with such words of impression.

              Great thought went into m̶e̶s̶p̶o̶’s WWAS’s outline of inferences, both deductive and inductive — stunning in its admixture, cunning in the traps laid. His tripe ̶r̶e̶a̶d̶s̶ ̶l̶i̶k̶e̶ ̶s̶q̶u̶e̶e̶k̶’̶s̶ ̶ [is] now, bellicose with little footing.”

              Editing is fun — and ironic — but how could I understand that?

            4. “My point is that mespo has beguiled himself to the toxic banter that exists here…”


              Actually you can’t “beguile” yourself. It take a third party to “beguile” (as in enchant someone in a deceptive way) you. For example: “The beautiful prose of WWAS beguiles mespo everytime but he knows it’s the Siren’s call.”

        1. Bellicose tripe with little footing??? Criminy! First I get accused of using too many statistics and facts, and now I am Footless???

          I wish you Sockpuppets could make up your own mind!

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

        1. Mine are not an invitation to debate

          And the Reply feature is not a request to comment. I would think an attorney and trained mediator would be better prepared for this format.

          1. Heck, Olly, I didn’t even know that an invitation was required.
            I knew about the civility rule here, but it appears that I’ve been unintentionally violating the “by invitation only” debate rule.

        2. Questions aren’t ad hominem unless you can’t answer them. If you don’t want responses to your own ad hominem attacks why would you post them in public?

    1. True dat; so true. But in the overall scheme of things, cause for optimism an entertainment.

  4. Why is it Prof Turley calling for Rosentein, Mueller, Comey, McCabe, Hillary, Obama, etc… to be arrested, held without bail & tried, after all the are national security risk!

    If Turley thinks Sessions did the correct thing by recusing himself then why hasn’t Turley recommend Sessions Fire Rosentein, Mueller, McCabe?

    Trump or Sessions should have fired them the minute they heard none of them recused themselves for conflicts of interest.

    Judicial Watch Asks “What Is The FBI Hiding In Its War To Protect Comey?
    Profile picture for user Tyler Durden
    by Tyler Durden
    Wed, 02/21/2018 – 09:15

    Authored by Tom Fitton, op-ed via,

    As the James Comey saga continues to unfold, the James Comey legend continues to unravel. The more we learn about his involvement in the deep state’s illicit targeting of President Trump, the more reason the American people have to question both his motives and his management as director of the FBI, the now-disgraced agency he headed before Trump fired him on May 16, 2017. Comey has left a trail of suspicious activities in his wake.

    Comey now looms large over a burgeoning constitutional crisis that could soon overshadow Watergate at its worst. To deepen the crisis even further, it now appears some of Comey’s former FBI and Justice Department colleagues continue to protect him from accountability.

    Three suspicious activities stand out, all intertwined: The so-called Comey Memos, Comey’s controversial testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee and Comey’s book deal.

    After Comey was fired by President Trump on May 9, 2017, he arranged to give the New York Times a Feb. 14, 2017 memorandum he had written about a one-on-one conversation with Trump regarding former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. The New York Times published a report about the memo on May 16, 2017. Special Counsel Robert Mueller was appointed the following day.

    On June 8, 2017, Comey testified under oath before the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, where he stated he authored as many as nine such memos. Regarding the Flynn memo, Comey admitted: “I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter [for The New York Times]. I didn’t do it myself for a variety of reasons, but I asked him to because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel.”

    Comey also testified about President Trump’s firing of him, and he detailed multiple conversations with President Trump, during which Comey confirmed he told President Trump three times that he was not a target of investigation. Judicial Watch is pursuing numerous FOIA lawsuits relating to Comey’s memoranda and FBI exit records as well a lawsuit for Justice Department communications about Comey’s Senate testimony. The American people deserve to know what, if any, complicity his former colleagues had in drafting that testimony and/or in engineering the appointment of Robert Mueller.

    The day before Comey’s testimony, Fox News reported: “A source close to James Comey tells Fox News the former FBI director’s Senate testimony has been ‘closely coordinated’ with Robert Mueller…”. Comey may have violated the law in leaking his official FBI memos to the media, and it would be a scandal if Comey coordinated his Senate testimony with Mr. Mueller’s special counsel office.

    That we have had to sue in federal court to discover the truth speaks volumes. The FBI has built a protective stonewall around Comey by refusing to release the Comey Memos and refusing to disclose records of communications between the FBI and Comey prior to and regarding Comey’s testimony before the Senate Intel Committee.

    Since his forced departure from the FBI, Comey signed a book deal in August 2017, set for publication in April 2018, for which he reportedly received an advance in excess of $2 million. Given the fact that the FBI appears to be letting Comey get away with stealing and leaking official government documents and colluding with the special counsel to get Trump, even a trusting person must be suspicions about his book deal.

    The FBI has fanned those suspicions by, you guessed it, adding a new layer to the protective stonewall around Comey. Again, Judicial Watch has been forced to sue a recalcitrant FBI for records, including but not limited to forms Comey was required to complete relating to prepublication review of the book by the FBI. Did Comey’s cronies give the fired FBI director a pass on this long-standing requirement? Is that why they are stonewalling the Judicial Watch FOIA?

    Based upon Comey’s performance to date, this book likely will be an elaborate exercise in self-apotheosis. That’s why the American public deserves to know if Comey’s former colleagues — many of whom we now know aided in his exoneration of Hillary Clinton and have participated in the contrived investigation of Donald Trump – scrutinized his literary claims or simply green-lighted his every word.

    There is no doubt that the deep state is in deep cover-up mode. The FBI, Justice Department and the special counsel all are stonewalling our requests for Comey documents. The more they stonewall, the deeper the suspicions grow about Comey’s complicity in the entire attempt to use the bogus Trump dossier to prevent the election of Donald Trump, and then use it to undermine his presidency once he was elected to office. In my experience in Washington, when people refuse to come clean, it is usually because they are hiding dirty laundry.

    1. If James Comey was, or is, working in concert with the Democrats, why did Comey torpedo Hillary’s campaign with that letter to Congress days before the election? Was Comey just trying to throw suspicion off himself? There’s a huge gap of logic there!

      1. One of the many major keys to this case seems to be FBI agent Carter Page was inserted into team Trump as a spy before Trump became prez. It s being reported Comey others knew Hillary was rigging the 2016 votes, DNI/DHS.. IG, but the accused traitors weren’t sure so they used Page/Hillary’s DNC’s Brit Intel Piss Gate crap & lied to the FISA court judges to get an illegal FISA Warrant.

        If you wish to play the home game ck , Mark Levin, Lawyer @ Lionel Nation , Judical Watch. , Zerohedge.

        Turley’s buddies, Comey, Rosensten, Muller, etc are being suggested by current/former military & many pols are phk’d on Treason charges, etc… We’ll see.

        Ever hear of JAG or Gitmo?

        1. Absolutely incoherent, but please continue. You may be on to something here. I’m not sure that that “something” might be, but my amusement sensor has definitely been triggered.

          this is to “just post whatever-the-f*ck-comes to mind” okie-dokie

Comments are closed.