Columns, Criminal law, Justice, Lawyering, Media

Sessions And How No Good Deed Goes Unpunished In Washington

jeff_sessions_official_portraitBelow is my column in The Hill newspaper on the continuing attacks on Attorney General Jeff Sessions.  There is obviously an effort to push Sessions into resigning while laying the groundwork for firing him if he is still around after the completion of the Mueller report.  Sessions on the other hand is standing firm, a position that is clearly encouraged by career officers at Justice who view the threats as undermining the integrity of the department.

Here is the column:

“I wish I did!” No words should be more unnerving for Donald Trump’s legal team. After a year of investigations triggered by the president’s firing of former FBI director James Comey, Trump still wishes that he had not picked Attorney General Jeff Sessions because Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation. Indeed, Trump tweeted a quote by former U.S. Attorney Joe DiGenova that the “recusal of Jeff Sessions was an unforced betrayal of the president of the United States.”

The “betrayal” of Sessions was, in fact, one of the few correct moves made by the administration during the first year of this scandal. More importantly, it may prove the one thing that restores part of Trump’s legacy if the investigation finds no criminal conduct. Sessions personifies the rule that no good deed goes unpunished in Washington.

Before his recusal, some of us publicly said that Sessions had no choice ethically but to take that step due to his role in the campaign as well as questions related to his contacts with Russian diplomats. Even Trump’s lead counsel, Rudy Giuliani, admitted this week that he would have had to consider recusal had he been appointed attorney general. Sessions ultimately recused himself after career ethics advisers at the Justice Department concluded that recusal was necessary.

None of that seems to help Sessions with Trump. Recent reports show Trump was irate and wanted to fire Sessions and even tried to dispatch aides to do so. The only reason he did not take that catastrophic step appears to be the refusal of his aides to carry out the order, particularly White House counsel Don McGahn. Still, Trump ordered Sessions down to Mar-a-Lago in March 2017 to berate him and demand that he “unrecuse” himself, a highly inappropriate demand to make of any lawyer, let alone the attorney general of the United States.

Trump appears incapable of forgiving Sessions for taking the clearly, unavoidably ethical path. Even if he is unwilling to see the ethical imperative, he should at least come to see the practical benefit of what Sessions did. By recusing himself, Sessions guaranteed the best case scenario for Trump. If special counsel Robert Mueller concludes there is no evidence of criminal conduct by Trump, Sessions removed any question that his involvement prejudiced or influenced the outcome.

Moreover, if Sessions had, as Trump clearly wanted, barred the appointment of a special counsel and then cleared the president, the legitimacy of this administration would have remained tainted, and impeachment would have become the only avenue to the truth for many citizens. Conversely, if Mueller finds criminal or impeachable acts by Trump, recusal by Sessions was clearly warranted. Furthermore, in an impeachable proceeding, the need for additional investigation is blunted by the long and independent investigation by Mueller.

None of this seems to register with Trump, who blames Sessions for a nightmarish year, even though it is the president’s own conduct that has prolonged and broadened this investigation. If the president had simply fired Comey when he took office or waited until after the conclusion of the investigation, it is doubtful that we would have had the appointment of a special counsel. All of his top aides, with the exception of Jared Kushner, reportedly argued against firing Comey at that time.

Some of us had questioned the basis for a special counsel’s appointment until Trump fired Comey and then told Russian diplomats the next day that the firing took pressure off him. He followed that up with an interview with Lester Holt that included the dumbfounding statement that he had the Russia investigation in mind when he fired Comey. That debacle was not brought about by Sessions or his pesky ethical standards.

In the end, Trump always has had a strong defense against these charges despite his best efforts to convey the contrary. The firing of Comey remains a poor basis for an obstruction charge. There were ample reasons to fire Comey, as suggested by a host of Republican and Democratic former attorney generals and Justice Department officials. Moreover, Trump’s self-immolating statement to Holt stands in contrast to the testimony of numerous witnesses and Comey himself.

All witnesses recount how Trump demanded that Comey make public what he had told numerous people and members of Congress in private that Trump was not a target of the investigation. Trump failed to see why Comey could tell so many people outside of the FBI that fact but refuse to do so publicly. Most importantly, Comey told Congress that Trump agreed with him that the investigation should continue to its full conclusion.

Giuliani indicated this week that the president is just waiting for the investigation to end to fire Sessions in some cathartic release of long simmering anger. Presumably, that would come with a report finding no basis for criminal allegations. Otherwise, Trump would push his administration further toward impeachment if he fired Sessions for not stopping an investigation that ultimately found potential crimes by the president. Thus, at the very moment when the decision of Sessions to recuse himself would pay its full dividend of benefits for Trump, the attorney general could be fired for the favor.

History may show that one of the men who did the most for Trump’s legacy was Sessions. This beleaguered figure has resisted pressure to resign in the best interests of not simply the Justice Department but this administration. His reward may be a pink slip after the release of the Mueller report as the president’s “wishes” come true. Indeed, the Trump sounds like the old Perry Como tune about forlorn desire, “If Wishes Were Kisses.” The song declares, “If dreamers were schemers, I’d make my dream come true.” However, this is one dream that would have been a nightmare if Trump made it come true.

Had Sessions blocked the investigation, there is a real possibility that Congress would have moved toward an impeachment investigation or the enactment of a new Independent Counsel Act. In the latter circumstance, Mueller could have easily led the same investigation and add his own Como twist, “If wishes were kisses, I’d still be investigating you.”

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

416 thoughts on “Sessions And How No Good Deed Goes Unpunished In Washington”

  1. Thanks for authoring this piece. It is interesting too that Gowdy and Nunes have not called for Sessions to resign. Nice work sir. Best, Denise

    Sent from my iPad

    >

  2. “even though it is the president’s own conduct that has prolonged and broadened this investigation.”

    I think Turley’s biases against Trump’s personality are demonstrated here and elsewhere. What is the real reason for many behind the investigation? They want Trump out not because he did anything wrong, rather they didn’t support him. They lost the election. What has been a common theme of many Democrats? Impeach Trump” whether or not all the investigations find him innocent.

    1. Allan,
      Of course he did something wrong. He had to have done something wrong. He won an election that was absolutely rigged against him and any other candidate not named Hillary Clinton. How were the Democrats so certain Donald Trump needed to be investigated and impeached? Because they had the election rigged for him to lose.

      1. Your sarcasm is likely missed by some that selectively close their eyes so they will focus only on the first sentence forgetting the corruption that has twisted statements and timelines. The President did nothing substantially wrong.

  3. After a year of investigations triggered by the president’s firing of former FBI director James Comey,…If the president had simply fired Comey when he took office or waited until after the conclusion of the investigation, it is doubtful that we would have had the appointment of a special counsel…Some of us had questioned the basis for a special counsel’s appointment until Trump fired Comey…The firing of Comey remains a poor basis for an obstruction charge. There were ample reasons to fire Comey,

    Triggered? He was handed a loaded weapon… My apologies to the writers of My Cousin Vinny; Here is the likely Sessions’ response to Trump when discussing Sessions decision to recuse himself: Mr. President, I’m from Ala-fu*king-bama. I’ve been around the law and politics for a very long time. You come from New York. You got elected President against the establishment’s good ‘ol girl. [There’s your trigger.] There is NO WAY that was not going to be investigated. There is NO WAY there was not going to be a special counsel!

    Turley, you really do like to cover all your bases. Like plucking petals off a daisy, you’ve got Trump deserved it, Comey deserved it, No basis for a special counsel. Trump triggered the appointment. The firing is a poor basis. Ample reasons to fire Comey. Imagine Trump’s shock to discover he found the one lawyer in D.C. with enough ethics to recuse himself.

    1. “There is NO WAY there was not going to be a special counsel!”

      I don’t know if that would have been Session’s thinking or not, but the statement is a reasonable assessment. That is something Professor Turley seems to forget. Therefore, Professor Turley scans the gossip columns to look for things that might have sounded better though in the long run might have been statements that the alternative in the long run.

  4. Can’t be sure but maybe Paul C Schulte, together with my clever response, was censored.

    1. Nope. Another thread.

      But CV Brown could certainly stand some moderation. There is a point where free speech becomes license.

      1. You are the poster boy for hurling invectives at others

        “For all the talk of women being victimized by men as part of the national #MeToo conversation — which has brought a mountain of reprehensible, and even illegal, behavior to light — these “funny ladies” seem committed to showing that women can hold our own in maligning and abusing our own sex. Of course, invectives are only hurled at women with wrong-think, as defined by the comedienne telling the unfunny joke.

        There is no recognition that the target is a human being and might be someone’s wife or mother. On the one hand, it’s easier to hurl invectives at someone you’ve already dehumanized. On the other, it’s hard to be funny when you so blatantly despise the target of your joke.

        “Joking” that turns political adversaries into enemies is also bad for society’s cohesion and democracy’s continued functioning, further pushing us all into perpetually warring political tribes.”

        http://thefederalist.com/2018/06/01/comedys-unfunny-ladies-making-nasty-people-us/

        1. The quote is not from me.

          I expect more coherence and craftsmanship in formulating your thoughts.

    2. David Benson owes me two citations, one from the Oxford English Dictionary. Two things: 1) you never had a clever response in your life and 2) you learn to live with being censored. Nothing on here is writ in stone.

    1. Excerpted from the letter linked above:

      “It remains our position that the President’s actions here, by virtue of his position as the chief law enforcement officer, could neither constitutionally nor legally constitute obstruction because that would amount to him obstructing himself, and that he could, if he wished, terminate the inquiry, or even exercise his power to pardon if he so desired.”

      Remember: This letter was printed in Comic Sans font. Dowd has reportedly used Comic Sans font in legal memoranda on previous occasions. One can guess why. Dowd is arguing that Trump can’t obstruct justice because Trump is justice and justice can’t obstruct justice because then there would be no justice. No kidding? When did justice become reified then deified as a flesh and blood mortal by the name of D. J. Trump? If D. J. Trump doffed his judicial robes, could he obstruct justice nakedly? Comic Sans, indeed.

      1. Why arent you in church this Sunday morning? or is it because Heaven doesnt want you and Hell has banned you?

    2. If the Confidential Memo was confidential, how did the NYTimes get it?

  9. The Donald is a card carrying member of the Manhattan Mafia.

  10. I just hope that Huber is working his butt off because he and the IG reports are going to save Sessions. I think the second IG report will take Rosenstein out, or at least cause him to recuse himself.

      1. mespo – this is a man that wrote a double secret extension of Mueller’s powers, do you think I am taking his word? I want a second opinion.

  12. The argument on behalf of Sessions is that he’s biding his time until the opportune moment to clear the lawfare artists out of the Department of Justice. In this interpretation, Trump’s jabs at him are a pantomime. If the Republicans retain control of the Senate in November, the President will have some leeway to make personnel changes. The FBI is dirty. the Mueller investigation is bollocks, and all this will eventually be clear to all but the most asinine and unteachable element within the Democratic Party. At that point Rosenstein can be fired along with various officials responsible for stonewalling Congress. The optimal outcome would be the distribution of the the Justice Department’s components among a series of successor departments and agencies and the like treatment of the FBI.

      1. Yep. I’m right. And you’re dotty, as well as being too childishly stubborn to look in a dictionary.

        1. Oh, I often look in dictionaries, even encyclopedias.

          As long as you are being insultive, I point out that in my opinion you are Nutz.

        2. Moderator — what about the civility rule? ‘Nutchacha’ is chronically and needlessly insulting to other individuals who comment. Please rein him in.

            1. David Benson owes me two citations, one from the OED. Why aren’t you going after Marky Mark Mark for the same reasons?

          2. I think some people should require a note from their mothers before being allowed to post on this blog.

          3. Moderator — what about the civility rule?

            It’s currently being violated by Diane / Late4Dinner, who is not only impersonating me, but has gone to the trouble of placing her device on three different wireless routers to do it.

      1. The term ‘retain’ is not in your vocabulary, evidently.

        The Democrats have a wretched electoral calendar. Rothenberg has sorted the current contests into categories. There are 26 seats for which a tentative projection is offered (of which none entail a party change). There are 8 seats for which no projection is offered. The Democrats would have to win all eight seats in order to win the Senate. Splitting them 50-50 would mean a gain of two seats for the Republicans.

        1. Not a chance and you know it. Without narcissistic blabbermouth in the WH maybe but he will still be screwing things up come November.

          1. “Without narcissistic blabbermouth in the WH”

            There you go again Ivankinsman, all talk absent content. We know you don’t like Trump and we know you don’t like his personality but you don’t seem to know his accomplishments and can’t seem to line up a good list of things that he has done that have been bad for the country.

            Are you a complainer? 😀

              1. Do you really think his tax cuts, for example, are going to boost the Us economy in the LONG TERM.

                LOL! That had to really hurt having to write that. Translation: his tax cuts are boosting the US economy in the SHORT TERM. To answer your question; No, Congress will fail to make them permanent and the Democrats will campaign on reversing course and so will the economy. But thank you for your honest assessment of what the tax cuts have done so far. Even if that was not your intent.

                  1. You need to add improve my reading comprehension to your summertime goals list.

                    If Congress fails to make the tax cuts permanent, then the Democrats will unwind them and give us back the pain President Trump relieved.

              2. Your statement simply demonstrates ignorance in the field of economics and history. The failure is not the tax cuts rather the failure to make them permanent which was caused by the Democrats and the failure not to control expenditures, also a problem with Democrats and a lot of Republicans.

                You seem to like to watch how mouths move rather than feel the accomplishments. That is a very superficial type of analysis.

                Despite the tax cuts, total federal revenues are increasing. The next item on the agenda should be spending control but that will not be possible unless the Democrats are defeated and the RINO Republicans become scared enough to support a reduction in Federal spending.

                1. Come on Allan … see the light. Reagan tried the same policies of drip down economics and they were a long-term failure. And as Trump and his billionaire cronies get richer the income inequality gap widens. So what about the American poor? Oh U forgot. In your eyes they aren’t important because they’re poor: http://mankindsdegradationofplanetearth.com/2018/06/02/trumps-cruel-measures-pushing-us-inequality-to-dangerous-level-un-warns-us-news-the-guardian/

                  1. Reagan’s policies permitted growth for decades afterward. Check out Kennedy, and Coolidge. The failure was our government didn’t take control on spending.

                    2. “That is completely contradictory to the real situation so stop writing complete guff.”

                      Take note how you are unable to state what the contradictions are. Do you even know who Calvin Coolidge was or his history? Facts do not seem to be something you care much about. You are making yourself look foolish again.

                    3. Oh yes … this word … this beloved word ‘foolish’. My God you love to look down your intellectual nose at people. You are one arrogant p@@@k – sorry I meant to write son of a gun but my digit slipped.

                      You remind me of one of those failed suburban school teachers who think they are God’s gift to humanity. You’re not a retired school teacher are you?

                    4. “Oh yes … this word … this beloved word ‘foolish’. My God you love to look down your intellectual nose at people.”

                      I try not to look down at people who may not have been appropriately educated on a subject they are talking about. However, I do look down on people who pretend to know a subject when they are totally ignorant and you appear to be such a foolish fellow.

              1. Apparently, you want someone to interpret the NYTimes article for you. If you had an argument based on it you would have distilled that argument into two or three sentences, but you don’t because you don’t understand economics or history.

                By the way, the NYTimes is not an honest broker and that has been proven many times. The newspaper hates the President and dabbles in garbage news frequently leaving out important events.

                Using entire articles on a regular basis is a hiding place for those lacking knowledge.

                1. Now you’ve started preaching again Allan from your pulpit – I’ve told you off about this before. Go to the back of the class…

                  1. Ivan, if you wish to quote from third-party sources then the least you could do is understand what they are talking about and the spin that exists in the piece. I’m not preaching. I am correcting the record because apparently, you don’t know how to read a headline and likely don’t know how to evaluate the copy or the source.

                    1. No no only the great all-knowing Allan can do this. Let’s all bend the knee to this Oracle of knowledge. You are almost as self-conceited as your 71 year old rich white man hero…

                    2. “No no only the great all-knowing”

                      Ivan, I can’t help it if you are unable to adequately read a headline or the content within. That I have that ability doesn’t make me all knowing. It just makes me smarter than you.

                    3. Allen,
                      Ivan has added improve my reading comprehension to his list of summer goals now that he’s got virtue signaling (racism) aced.

                    4. Yes, yes Allan. Just like the rich 72-year-old white man you are smarter than everyone. You are the most intelligent individual on this planet. Oh … even smarter than Einstein or Marie Curie or Charles Dickens or Jack London or Jean-Paul Satre or James Joyce. Jesus, man, you are one smart cookie.

                    5. “Yes, yes Allan. Just like the rich 72-year-old white man you are smarter than everyone.”

                      Ivan, it is not that I am so smart rather that you aren’t smart enough. You don’t have the tools to deal with these types of issues and that is proven every time you comment on a personal nature rather than providing facts.

                    6. Which Ken? David Benson’s alter ego or the gassy conspiracy peddler?

            3. And now America First guy is f@##ing over his country’s neighbours and European Allies on trade instead of keeping a laser-eyed focus on China and Tsar Putin’s Russia. He personally might not be able to retain close friends but he should not put his country in the same position. And these tariffs are going to backfire on the US consumer – he just wouldn’t listen to his advisers: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/04/30/business/the-tax-cut-buybacks-business-investment.html

              2. I don’t like tariffs but I don’t like US agreements that favor those countries over the people of the US when those countries are engaged in anti-competitive practices. Consider what you call f-cking allies and other nations a negotiation. If those allies wish to treat the US badly let them be f-cked.

                I doubt in the end tariffs will be a big problem unless those tariffs are tied in with practices of other nations that demonstrate those other nations are engaging in unfair practices. Unfortunately, the US Congress for too long has sacrificed American needs so there needs to be a readjustment.

                  1. “Keep on swallowing the Trump BS.”

                    Ivan, this type of comment makes you appear shallower than you might be. There is no content to back up what you say and that is a problem for anyone that wishes to engage in an intellectual discussion. I have mentioned a whole slew of things accomplished under Trump yet you mention very little if anything of importance to prove your point.

                    Put some meat in your statements, Ivan.

              3. Our European Allies have not been keeping a “laser-eyed focus on China and Tsar Putin’s Russia”. Trade negotiations have a lot to do with our Allies lack of focus and the fact that they take but do not give. Look at NATO and how wealthy countries within NATO have for decades reneged on their dues. The US has an obligation to its citizens and if that means a temporary loss in European smiles so be it. The US has been aiding countries all over the world with more than its foreign aid and this costs the American taxpayer money while benefiting all. Those Eastern European Nations may become better allies than our former allies that just keep taking. I exclude Britain, though, its actions against its own people in recent years, has been reprehensible.

                1. Ok so the US just decided to give away that money? Again you are a complete sucker to the Trumpian B.S.. America spend much if that money to peddle influence overseas – what do you think China is doing right now to extend its political and economic influence – splashing the cash. Again you are being incredibly naive here.

                  1. What money, that hasn’t been spent before? How is that money wasted? Does Trump support that “waste” of money?

                    China is busy expanding into the China Sea and acting as a threat to nations in the area using our technology that was stolen and our money that was given to them by prior administrations due to their lack of focus on trade negotiations.

                    Think about the Cox report and Bill Clinton involving China and its nuclear espionage against the US. What did Bill Clinton or any of the following administrations do about that and the continuing IT theft by China?

                    Don’t be so lame in your argument.

          2. I see simple arithmetic defeats you as well. Why not write Rothenberg and Gonzalez and tell them what you pull out of your ass is a better predictor than their survey research. I’m sure they’ll be mortified.

    3. “and the like treatment of the FBI.”

      I wonder if the US Marshall’s service whose reputation I believe is intact couldn’t end up as part of an FBI solution?

      1. The function of the Marshal Service is, I believe, to operate federal jails, employ bailiffs, and enforce court orders. I don’t think they incorporate an investigatory service.

        1. Yes, you are correct, but a lot of the problems with the FBI involve administrative functions and control over rogue employees. I believe the Marshal’s Service has remained honest and relatively apolitical so perhaps their staff could help reform the top level of the FBI unless of course. the top level of the FBI corrupts the Marshall’s Service. We need competent administrators and lawyers.

    4. Haha. Nice. You get A+ on this “Intro to Fiction” attempt. Please post more of this type of material.

      this is “I didn’t steal all of this from Hannity” nutty sufferer

  13. “Sessions on the other hand is standing firm, a position that is clearly encouraged by career officers at Justice who view the threats as undermining the integrity of the department.”
    ***************
    After Holder, Lynch, Comey, McCabe, Page and Strzok exactly what “integrity” are career officers worried about? Efrem Zimbalist, Jr.’s ?

      1. Exactly. No cries for integrity from DOJ career officials when Lynch meets with the husband of the subject of an investigation on a tarmac for 45 minutes.

        1. That is why Turley relies on the gossip that the President should have said “b” instead of “a”. He compares the downside of “b” to a supposed good answer which is a ridiculous way of looking at things since there is no way to demonstrate that “a” would have been a better answer. None of that matters. There is no integrity in the leadership of the DOJ and FBI

  14. Pingback: Sessions And How No Good Deed Goes Unpunished In Washington | JONATHAN TURLEY – A record of mankind's degradation of planet earth

  15. I totally agree with this. Sessions has shown remarkable tenacity in hanging on in their in the face of a barrage of Presidential criticism and is truly representing the independence of the Justice Department from the Executive. He deserves a lot of credit for recusing himself as well as admiration for standing up to Trump when it comes to upholding the law.

    1. Ivan:
      There’s nothing in the Constitution conferring “independence” on the DOJ. In fact, there’s plenty to say it’s not. So exactly how does a bureaucracy that has the power over life and death and freed from oversight of popularly elected officials make you feel safe? Benevolence of folks like Lynch, Holder, Comey and McCabe maybe?

      1. The Constitution established a system of checks and balances between the executive, judiciary and legislative branches. If Trump thinks that he has absolute authority over all federal investigations and cannot be forced to testify in front of the special prosecutor he can think again. His lawyers have now admitted he dictated his son’s statement on the Russian Trump Tower meeting. The evidence is mounting against him: https://wordpress.com/read/feeds/68585556/posts/1877398826

        1. You have no idea what you’re talking about and your comment is sentimental, law-ignorant, gobbledygook. The DOJ is part of the Executive Branch. Per Art. II, Sec. 1, the President had all vested executive authority. Cite me the authority where the DOJ gets independence from the Constitution.

                1. Um, no. Mueller is a Justice Department employee, terminable at will.

                  1. So why hasn’t Trump done it. Because the repercussions would be too great – and he knows it. He can bitch and whine all he likes but that’s as much as he can do.

                    1. “So why hasn’t Trump done it.”?

                      Ivan, Trump is not a politician and isn’t used to the deceitful actions of politicians and political machines. He is used to dealing with the mafia that all builders in NYC have to deal with. He thought the mafia was bad but he is learning that politicians can be far worse and immune from the law. You really ought to read more about American politics and the Constitution.

                    2. Trump has chosen to lie in bed with some of the most unethical individuals on this planet in terms of his real estate deals – most people wouldn’t touch them with a barge pole. Jesus you really are naive about him Allan. Stop taking such a blinkered starry eyed approach to him …

                    3. “Trump has chosen to lie in bed with some of the most unethical individuals on this planet”

                      Obama has chosen to lie in bed with some of the worst people in this nation, Farahkhan, Resko, The Reverand Wright, Bill Ayers, etc. I don’t even have to mention Hillary since you have already agreed she is trash.

                      Does Trump lie in bed with these heinous individuals or is he merely forced to associate with them because crooked politicians permit these heinous individuals to thrive? You apparently are very naive when it comes to illegalities associated with governments up and down the line.

                    4. So why hasn’t Trump done it.

                      No hurry at this time. The Mueller investigation is rubbish. This is more and more manifest each month. The right time to discharge Rosenstein and Mueller and can their Democratic Party donor crew will eventually arrive. The right time will be coincident with the demoralization of a critical mass of partisan Democrats.

        1. Ivankinsman – journalists have lied to and about the President. They have vilified him and then expect us to take what they say about him as the gospel. Tell me, why hasn’t Joy Reid been fired, but Rosanne has? What is the difference?

          Presidents have lied to journalists and the American public throughout time. If you live long enough, you will learn every President you ever lived under lied to you at one point. If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, eh?

          1. You choose to vote for a proven liar – that’s your choice. But many people won’t as they have higher ethical standards.

            1. ivankinsman – my choices were two proven liars. I picked the one I most trusted with nuclear weapons.

              2. I agree that there was very little to choose between the trustworthiness of the two candidates – both as bad as each other.

                However, now we know for certain that Trump is a proven liar and his next Democratic opponent will be rather different to HC I think. Bring on the mid-terms so the narcissistic blabbermouth’s record can be judged at the ballot box (if Mueller investigation does not get him for obstruction of justice etc. first).

                1. Politicians in the US (and probably elsewhere) don’t get to become President without self-serving statements, puffery and sometimes outright lies. Example: Obama: “If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor”.

        2. Trump’s “lies” didn’t involve national security or personal gain while in office. HRC’s and Obama’s lies did.

          Ivan, you seem to believe that entrapment is good policy to ensnare those you don’t like but vigorously complain when the one being entrapped is one of your own. That is the problem with your type of justice. What many of us seek for is that all are equal under the law. Unfortunately, your mindset is limited to what you want rather than what the law dictates.

          1. Your putting Obama on the same platform as Trump in terms of unethical behaviour? You think
            Obama deserved a special prosecutor – for what exactly? Did he fire an FBI director for investigating a hostile power’s intervention in a US election? What did Obama do exactly,

            1. He made the mistake of having a black father, and of being a Democrat.

                1. Ivan. I congratulate you on your understanding the nature of racism. When I saw his comment before viewing yours I was going to say almost the same thing though, I don’t ask for people to be blocked.

                    1. I don’t like racist comments but it is up to the owner of the list to decide the limits. The best way to combat these awful racist comments is with more free speech or ignoring these people completely. It’s tough to have to listen to things one abhors but the alternative is to lock people up (like Robbins in London) because you don’t like the content of their speech even when their speech might be accurate.

                    3. “No idea what you are blathering on about.”

                      Ivan, this demonstrates that you know nothing about private ownership or freedom of speech.

                2. ivankinsman said, “Moderator – this is a very racist comment. Can you block this guy?”

                  Ivan, you are wrong about Jay S. The comment you mistook for racism was intended as sarcasm. The fact that Allanonsense agrees with you is absolute proof positive that you are wrong about Jay S.

                3. Ok apologies I missed the sarcasm tag here. And, yes, I totally agree with Jay S – Trump basers hate Obama for being an intelligent, very funny, personable half black man, who also completely trashed the Donald at the WH correspondents dinner (and the Donald has never forgiven Obama for making fun of him).

                  1. “Trump basers hate Obama for being an … half black man”

                    Do you wish to become a race-baiter? Trump supporters also support people like Thomas Sowell and Clarence Thomas both black, the former being one of the great economists and minds of the day and the latter a Supreme Court Judge. The left can’t manage those two because they are black and too many on the left act only so they feel better about themselves. Paternalism is not a good thing. You should read Sowell as he provides raw data that demonstrates a picture quite different than the contrived data of the left.

                  2. Trump basers hate Obama for being an intelligent, very funny, personable half black man,

                    If fiction helps you feel better, find. Could you refrain from bothering normal people with your fantasy life?

                    1. Oohhh – whose got ants in their pants. So you hate him as much as the 71 year old narcissistic blabbermouth rich old white man? Wow – you really are a hard core starry-eyed Trumper!

                    2. NII, Ivankinsman is starting to sound more and more like Natacha. I am beginning to think they are transmitting a contagious disease.

                    3. Oh yes Allan we are … and it is called the Blue Wave … and it is spreading rapidly to wreak havoc and wrath (to use Bannon lingo) on you and your ilk. You better get into your doomsday shelter come November.

                    4. “we are … and it is called the Blue Wave ”

                      I’ll stay on the sidelines should your fantasy come true. Then I will watch your type in a French Revolution Twist guillotine their own leaders. That might happen sooner than people think based on what we hear from those leftists formerly in government service that are now starting to fight with one another. You guys act and sound like fascists.

                    5. Yeah yeah yeah Allan. It is the Trumpians who are seeking to undermine US democratic institutions but Herr Trumps days are numbered. Byyyeee!!!

                    6. “Yeah yeah yeah Allan. It is the Trumpians who are seeking to undermine US democratic institutions but Herr Trumps days are numbered. Byyyeee!!!”

                      Ivan, ignorance seems to lead you by the nose. Since the President has been in office I don’t know of anything that he has done that has been unconstitutional. He has bent over backward to stay within the law and even where former Presidents stretched their power he has declined to do so.

                      Ignorance should not be the basis of discussion. Put up the facts, shut up, or continue to be ignorant.

                    8. “Now there is in-fighting between thecfascists – Night of the Long Knives Allan – hope you survive the fall out: http://mankindsdegradationofplanetearth.com/2018/06/05/billionaire-koch-brothers-”

                      The ignorance persists with Ivan who wouldn’t know a fascist if he tripped over one and read the book the fascist was writing of his life. Tariffs do not equate with fascism. Prior to the passage of the16th Amendment to the US Constitution (“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes…”) tariffs were a major generator of cash for the federal government. Tariffs have little to do with fascism.

                      Trump has demonstrated that he lives under the Constitution something severely stretched by other Presidents, but to a fascist that is meaningless because fascists want to control and that is what is behind a lot of your arguments You want your voice to be the voice of everyone and are willing to break the law, obscure the facts and demonize anyone that has a different voice from yours. It seems apparent that unconstitutional force eventually enters into your methods of controlling the population. You must love the way Robinson was jailed in London and the facts that knives have replaced guns as killing machines. The right of free speech has been severely impaired so that should be very much to your liking.

                    10. “Wrong Allan – my other site:
                      http://www.visefead2017.com
                      I am totally against TR being locked up unlike the pc liberal lefties, of which I am not one.”

                      Ivan, I am totally aware of your stand on immigration (you know I have been to your immigration website) which is one aspect of your totality of ideas regarding the political economy and it appears to be the only one where your ignorance seems to be-be suppressed not permitting your emotions to run the functions of your brain. We agree somewhat on immigration but what I consider to be your fascist views leads to this type of government action. You won’t recognize that like the French Revolutionaries didn’t until they found their heads between the blades of the guillotine that best represented their positions in that “failed” revolution. They had acted without the use of their heads that contain the brain.

                    11. Well we are going to have to agree to disagree. Let me put this to you – if not Trump, or Pence – probably even worse choice – who would you want as President? There are a few Republicans I can stomach – John McCain being probably top of the list.

                    12. “Well we are going to have to agree to disagree”.

                      Do you think that wasn’t known many replies ago even before this latest thread? Yet, that hasn’t stopped you, so I wonder why you made the statement?

                      “Let me put this to you – if not Trump, or Pence – probably even worse choice – who would you want as President? There are a few Republicans I can stomach – John McCain being probably top of the list.””

                      Is this telling me you like the Democrats that have use PC speech as a method to get around the first amendment? Real Democrats, that are already buried, are turning in their graves watching this new crowd of leftist Democrats destroy the Bill of Rights along with the Constitution among other things.

                      There is no one man in this nation or any other nation that is qualified to run the government. That is something our founders recognized and that is why the Constitution created all sorts of checks and balances including a balance against mob behavior which is something I believe you could be accused of when it comes to the present President. The founders understood what classical liberalism was (quite the opposite of the Liberal or Progressive of today).

                      I guess I have always been an Independent even though the vast majority of my life I was a registered Democrat. I changed to Republican only so I could vote in the primary for a specific individual but never returned to the Democratic party because 1) I didn’t vote based on party and 2) The Democratic Party became insane.

                      As a Republican voter (not a Republican) I voted in the primary for someone other than Trump. Based on what he has accomplished I am convinced I was totally wrong not voting for him in the first place. I don’t agree with everything he does but I note a man that looks towards America and a man that has accomplished an amazing amount in a short period of time despite the lack of support from both Democrats and Republicans. There are some negatives but as we see on this blog those negatives appear to be trivial especially since when asked to list them those that hate him seem unable to do so. [Look at your own non-responses.]

                      I have little love for the Republicans in Congress and wouldn’t provide the Republican Party with a dime. I will, however, support candidates that I believe stand for America and the Constitution no matter what party they belong to..

                      I even support the Constitution where I disagree with it unlike the vast majority of lefties. I believe in the Amendment process and understand why changes should take time and be carefully thought out. Culture changes slowly, much slower than changes in the law so one has to be careful about using the law to change the culture. Remember Hammurabi didn’t create law. He codified it based on the cultural changes of the millennia.

                      Regarding John McCain: Would the real John McCain please stand up? There is the John McCain created by the press and a John McCain created by a laudable family history that probably had a lot of influence that led to John McCain’s personal success which without such a family history many claim would have led to a tremendous failure and worse. Then there is the real McCain that I don’t know, yet we may be seeing that part of him today which seems more self-serving than many might assume.

                    13. Ok I agree here that the Democratic Party became way out of control with its support of political correctness, minority rights, a failure to control immigration, support of alt genders etc.

                      However I feel, unlike you, that the pendulum has now swung to the other extreme. What I am looking for is a candidate that combines the best of the Dems and the Repubs (probably will never happen) – both Clinton and Trump were flawed characters from the outset.

                      Tony Blair did a very good job in transforming the British Labour party by stealing a lot of the Conservative party agenda and making the party very attractive to the electorate. The Democrats need a leader who is a transformer and will come up with a pragmatic agenda (Bill Clinton was very successful at working across the floor of the House).

                      Trump is too much of a divisive character in my opinion e.g. look at his approach to the black American football players). He is failing to bridge the political divide and that does not work out well for ALL of America in the long run.

                    14. “Ok I agree here that the Democratic Party became way out of control”

                      It seems we have a substantial agreement.

                      “However I feel, unlike you, that the pendulum has now swung to the other extreme”

                      What extreme are you talking about? Let’s deal with policy/principle.

                      Economy: Fantastic job reports with more black employed than ever before. Increased salaries and bonuses. Unexpected stock market rallies that help stabilize weak pension plans.

                      Foreign affairs: Trump may or may not succeed in his dealings with North Korea which attacks a lot of problems at their core. ISIS beat, though the metastasis created by Obama will still have to be dealt with. Allies in the middle east that will contain Iran (look at your history books even involving the English empire and specifically look at ‘a balance of power’.

                      I could go on for pages.

                      Clinton is a proven unrepentant serial rapist. Trump has a mouth but there is no proof of any illegal activity in that regard. The big one with Stormy Daniels if true was a one night stand not atypical of the average American male. There is no comparison between the two with regard to such activities and Trump is not even accused of such irregularities while in public office. If you wish to be prudish then you will have to check our other Presidents. The grossest was probably LBJ. Look at Kennedy’s affairs. He used to slip out of the White House to go ‘whoring’ and probably used his public office as well.

                      “Trump is too much of a divisive character in my opinion”

                      That is a creation of the Liberals and the Democrats. Every Republican President has been attacked in the same fashion. Ronald Reagan was called stupid, but in writing a lot of his policies were written long before he became President. They want to “Kill Bush” #2 and they tried to pin infidelity on Bush #1. Almost all of this talk is BS and represents the more heinous side of Liberals.

                      Re the football players: I need not agree or disagree with what they were trying to say. I would make them cease such action immediately and fire any that acted in that fashion. I would do that even if my ideas were aligned with theirs and even if I would march with them after the game.

                      Trump is not failing to bridge the gap. The Democrats have decided he should be removed and even in national security issues they are hindering anything he does whether they agree or not and they are doing that for purely political reasons while being supported in these actions by Liberal MSM.

                      Reagan who was expert at bridging gaps faced the same type of Leftist obstinacy.

                    15. Allan – my personal feeling is all the players go to the WH or none. I think Trump did the right thing by canceling, it was just going to be used against him. Let the onus fall back on the players.

                    16. “Allan – my personal feeling is all the players go to the WH or none.”

                      Paul, the entire issue is a non-issue and not worth time discussing. Whichever way that is handled is fine with me. I think the players that are really concerned with their issues should have met with the President on the off chance they could speak to him and gain some support for their issues. He is like that and often will listen to how people feel. He responds well to that.

                    17. Wow you really are a true Trumpian in all sesnses of the word and blinded by your absurd loyalty to him. There a millions of Americans who are very different to you in their political outlook and who want nothing to do with Trump and his divisiveness. Let’s see how your Superhero impacts Republican voting at the mid-terms. Mexico is already retaliating against his moronic tariffs imposition and I can already hear Republicans running for the exits: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-44378660

                    18. “Wow you really are a true Trumpian in all sesnses of the word”

                      Ivan, it is difficult to understand your comment unless one recognizes the comment is ridiculous. Is a non-Trumpian one that hails unemployment and wages going down? You are difficult to understand especially since you are unable to provide a sentence or two of data explaining why a poor economy is better than a good one.

                      You are back to divisiveness. Tell me why that divisiveness didn’t disappear with Reagan? Tell me why there were no sexual complaints against LBJ or complaints of boorishness and pushiness. He was a Democrat. Why did the left start accusing the senior Bush of inappropriate sexual abuse occurring when he was a private citizen, old, and in a wheel chair. Take note that complaint arose years later. The left is dirty and that is what they do. They use innuendo and dirt to assassinate their rival’s character. The divisiveness predominately comes from the left and always has.

                      ” Let’s see how your Superhero impacts Republican voting at the mid-terms.”

                      All too many Republicans aren’t standing behind him. If they did 90% of Turleys blogs would have to do actual “criminality” rather than all the stuff that has been contrived and swallowed whole by the naive that are unable to research the problems and think for themselves.

                      You want me to read about trade in your citation. I didn’t mention trade. So far we don’t we don’t know what will happen. What we do know is that the US has made terrible trade deals that need to be rectified. At present we are in the dealing making process and the deals made will be quite different than the noise you hear. The deals are not based on trade alone. They are also based on world security.

                      It’s funny that you chose Mexico a country that one could call a failed stated where the leaders have abused the populace for decades. Mexico should be among the richest nations in the world but their leadership saw to it it wasn’t and only the leaders became rich. Now I understand what you consider good government ought to be.

                    19. Sorry Allan you are ranting too much here. You need to understand that EVERYONE IS NOT LIKE YOU.

                      I admired George Bush Sr and Bill Clinton (who is no worse a womaniser than you Superhero) but his son and his hawkish VP Cheney were useless. Obama did a very good all round job but was warm on foreign policy. Trump is good on immigration but weak on everything else – especially man management. Don’t just group ‘the Left’ into one amorphous blob and try not to be so blinkered.

                    20. Ivan accusations without fact are an indication that a person is totally ignorant. When it is repeated over and over again as you have done it demonstrates stupidity. What you call a rant is a response containing responsive information that leaves you defenseless. You don’t want discussion because you are a divisive individual something you accuse the President of. There is no room in your addled brain for diversity because tunnel vision prohibits you from seeing anything but what you are focused on. I feel sorry for you.

                      I wait for you to provide fact knowing you never will or it will be weak and temporary. So far, in the past dozen or so responses all you did was name call. That is Ok, but from an adult one expects some facts intertwined. You don’t have any and in that way you are are like a grade school kid throwing a temper tantrum and insulting someone’s mother.

                      “I admired George Bush Sr and Bill Clinton (who is no worse a womaniser than you Superhero)”

                      This stupid statement means that you do not believe Bill Clinton raped and abused multiple women or it means you want to think I did. This adequately demonstrates what type of liar you are, an unpleasant one that can’t even make up a good story. Maybe you are the type of man Bill Clinton is so that you think all men are like that. They aren’t, but you are starting to show a sickness and from multiple past posts it seems your sickness might revolve around some sort of sexual perversion whether real-time or in fantasy.

                    22. “Oh … and on the economy Trump is very good on hyping things up ”

                      Ivan, don’t assume everyone is as thin brained as you. I don’t care what Trump says or what any of the talking heads say. I look at the raw data and what is actually happening that proves the economy has done far better than many optimistic opinions regarding Trump.

                      I don’t expect you to understand what 3.8 unemployment represents or understand the U6 or any of the numbers that demonstrate how well the economy is doing. That is beyond what you capable of. However, you do have somewhat of a brain so you could look at the bare essentials so that you can realize that your comment above demonstrates the words of a poorly educated individual that has reasonable writing skills appearing way above his actual abilities.

                      I don’t even think you understand the nuances behind the immigration debate here and elsewhere despite the fact that we seem to have some agreement regarding immigration. (There reasonable arguments for immigration). I don’t think you understand squat except perhaps you could be a white nationalist skinhead fascist in disguise and want to limit immigration for all the wrong reasons. We already know you have fascist tendencies.

                      You are a lost soul and don’t even know it.

                    23. OK, Allan. I don’t like to get personal in these debates but you remind me of a bean counter, beavering away in the back office on your calculating machine, feeling underappreciated and just waiting for a Hitler – sorry Trump – to release your inborn potential…

                      OK, you want some facts so here they are:

                      1) Trump: Three million jobs have been created since Trump took office,” booms Trump’s news release. He made the same claim at a rally in April.

                      Fact: the rate of job creation under him is actually slower than the last four years under Obama. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2.188m jobs were added in 2017. Obama added 2.3m in 2013, 2.99m in 2014, 2.71m in 2015, and 2.24m in 2016

                      Trump: unemployment rate has dropped to 3.8%. On Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics did indeed report the unemployment rate for May was 3.8%

                      Fact: the unemployment rate is declining in part because of large numbers of people leaving the workforce rather than getting jobs. The percentage of workers in jobs or looking for work dropped from 62.9% in March, to 62.8% in April to 62.7% in May. Those levels have not been seen since the 1970s.

                      ***

                      Trump: American families received $3.2tn in gross tax cuts

                      Fact: the bill delivers $1.5tn in tax cuts – and that number includes cuts that corporations will receive.

                      the non-partisan joint committee on taxation estimates the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will result in $1.456tn less in taxes over the next 10 years.

                      Some of that comes from the corporate income tax rate being cut from 35% to 21%, while the tax rate for wealthy individuals has been cut from 39.6% to 37%. The tax cut for corporations is permanent; the tax cuts for individuals will expire in 2026.

                      The bill is projected to add $1.46tn to the nation’s debt over the next decade. And the Washington thinktank the Center for American progress predicts that Trump will save $11m to $15m a year under the tax bill, while Jared Kushner will save between $5m and $12m per year.

                      ***

                      Trump: he has rolled back unnecessary job-killing regulations such as the Clean Power Plan.

                      Fact: The Environmental Protection Agency had previously estimated the plan would prevent 90,000 child asthma attacks and 3,600 premature deaths a year by 2030.

                      ***

                      While Trump claims the Clean Power Plan has already been rolled back, as of May 2018 the EPA was yet to finalize its repeal, and 19 states are challenging the government’s move to scrap the plan.

                      ***

                      Trump: he has taken action to confront aggression by Iran and its proxies.

                      Fact: he has withdrawn from the landmark international deal on Tehran’s nuclear programme. In doing so he drew condemnation from the leaders of the UK, Germany and France, who made clear that Iran was abiding by the terms of the agreement.

                      ***

                      Trump: he has confirmed the most circuit court judges of any president in their first year.

                      Fact: Republicans have rushed through the appointment of 21 such judges, and Trump plans to add 20 more by the end of 2018.
                      Most of those appointments are white men (why no blacks, hispanics, colored one might ask?)

                      ***

                      Trump: his trade actions are justified as an act of national security

                      Fact: the trade practices harm the US’s closest allies, raise the prices on key intermediate products, and provoke retaliation; they cannot possibly deliver higher wages, better jobs, or an improved trade balance.

                      The result will be to undermine the long-term role of the dollar; ratchet up the public debt; and undermine the current expansion through a spiral of protectionist measures and rising uncertainties for business.

                    24. The gradual narrowing of the replies makes it difficult so I am replying anew where the columns will be much wider.

                    26. “Wrong Allan – my other site:
                      http://www.visegrad2017.com
                      I am totally against TR being locked up unlike the pc liberal lefties, of which I am not one.”

                      Not wrong for I applaud your actions on a limited scope of things. On the other hand, you act just like a leftist and a fascist elsewhere which I believe virtually all active leftists are and for the most part that seems to be the path you follow. You seek too much control and power and you sound like you would use that power in a forceful way.

                      Trump has not used such force. If he had, many in the FBI would have been incarcerated and metaphorically speaking the bureaucracy would have seen heads roll, but instead, Trump has remained within the law and even though he has the legitimate Constitutional power he has restrained himself to not fire Rosenstein, Mueller and numerous others. He even has the power to make all the documents available but has permitted the overseer (Congress) to act which limits his involvement.

                    27. Oh yes Allan we are … and it is called the Blue Wave … and it is spreading rapidly to wreak havoc and wrath (to use Bannon lingo)

                      Again, the Rothenberg / Gonzales catalogue of congressional contests shows that there are 357 safe seats and that of the remaining 78 contests, Democrats are leading in 7 contests for seats currently held by Republicans and have a 50-50 shot at 9 other seats currently held by Republicans. Republicans have a 50-50 shot at 2 seats currently held by Democrats. The Democratic lead in the generic ballot (3.2%) is also consistent with normal-range gains. The median number of seats which change hands (net) in congressional midterms is 15. And, again, your electoral calendar is wretched for Senate contests because you’re defending 24 seats. Projections now have you losing two seats.

                      There is no Blue Wave. But, by all means, proceed with your fantasy.

              2. Bingo. Now cue the gullible rubes, dupes and Klan-lite wannabees who will start shrieking whatever conspiracy theory the gutter-internet is spewing this week.

                this is to jay

            2. Before trying to deal with Obama who flew cash to Iran one has to assess whether the firing of Comey was in the Presidents domain or not. It was. Comey was a member of the executive branch. This is not a controversial subject except to those that don’t know the law or wish to pretend that he did something wrong.

              Even the facts demonstrate that there was a good reason to fire Comey.
              The Democrats agreed.
              The Republicans agreed.
              Comey’s actions since have demonstrated he didn’t belong in that capacity.
              I think even McCabe will eventually be testifying against Comey.

              You can neither argue the law or the facts, so you argue garbage that makes you look foolish.

              1. The majority of Democrats vehemently disagreed and McCabe has definitely testified against Trump to Mueller in terms of his illegal pressure on Rosenstein regarding the reasons behind Comey’s firing.

                1. Tell us what McCabe said under oath without referring to his self-serving notes. He has lied already and might end up being indicted for a real crime.

                    1. Ivan, based on your continuous personal attacks it is obvious that you have said everything you know and that isn’t much. You sound like a six-year-old in a playground whose mommy is temporarily absent.

                    2. That”s very hurtful Allan. You are so pedantic and self-righteous I can’t help taking this to a personal level. I must do better.

                    3. “That”s very hurtful Allan.”

                      Ivan, grow up. You have no problem being hurtful or making unsubstantiated remarks about other people. You have a problem that could be solved with a bit of introspection and a better choice of reading materials.

                    4. Well here is something to cheer us all up Allan – a joke about Trump:
                      “If he was any more moronic you’d have to water him once a week”.

                    5. Ivan, your childish joke just demonstrates your understanding and inability to debate facts. Get close to Diane (L4D). Her brain is fried and in comparison, you will look good.

                    7. “Oh – it has me laughing out loud!”

                      Ivan, I am happy that you have found something to laugh about. A bit low-life but so what.

                2. Allan:

                  Your debates with Ivankinsman — aside from the obvious battle of wits with an unarmed man — evoke the sentiments of that great American theologian and president of Harvard University, Charles Chancy, who coined that iconic statement of futility in convincing those closed to reason. “You might as well reason with the wind,” said the old Tory. You’ve got the same adversary just with a lot more hot air.

                  1. Thanks for your comments and your excellent quote about trying to reason with the wind. Unfortunately for Ivan, he registers below a ‘light wind’ (MET).

            3. Obama deserved a special prosecutor – for what exactly?

              Lois Lerner, Fast-and-Furious, and the Toilet Server.

  16. Criticizing Sessions only makes Trump look weak and petty. He appointed him and he can fire him. He won’t, because he will not get another AG appointed during this Congress, and he will lose enpugh Republican Senators to become an instant and permanent lame duck.

      1. Death knell? What do you fancy is going to happen? Mecha-Streisand shows up and stomps on the White House?

        1. NII:
          Ivan’s a global pollution panicker. You know the “we’re too far gone to survive” crowd. Take what he says with a grain of mercury.

        2. What I mean is he will be f@@@ed and he knows it. In fact, if he even triescti fire Mueller I reckon either Sessions and Rosenstein or both could resign as happened in the Nixon situation.

          1. Rosenstein is running this charade. The reason he resigns is the jig’s up.

    3. The President has gone through one and a half years without much support from the Republican leadership, the RINO’s, and the Democrats. Look at what he has done without them. Look at the economy bouncing back from the cr-p that Obama told us we would have to learn to live with. Look at the bonuses to the middle class and the increase in salaries of note COSTCO just raised salaries $1.00 per hour. Look at the U3 and U6 unemployment tables. In fact look at any graphs that demonstrate the vast financial improvements in the US economy since the doldrums of Obama. Look at the pensions that have been strengthened. Look at how the world is starting to reshape and though premature look at the advancements made by Trump with N. Korea permitting some from the MSM to break ranks and praise the President.

      Tony, you are focussing on the worst type of gossip that may not place the President in a favorable light while neglecting all the things that have helped American citizens.

      If the President desires to run again and if he wins the question is should he win on his vast accomplishments or lose based on the pettiness of those that accomplish little?

  18. Jonathan Turley explained very ably and explicitly the “excuse” for Jeff Sessions – Sessions is the answer to “what’s the ethical diffrerence between the Trump and Obama administrations?”

    And that answer is

    “For once in eight years we had an administration which immediately appointed an independent Attorney General, not the President’s ideological wingman. For once in eight years, the rule of law stands in this nation despite the President’s own self-destructive demands that the law take a back seat to political expediency.

    For once in eight years, we got a Presidency that did the right thing, because it was the right thing to do.”

    If Trump drops Sessions, he’ll have a hard time finding anyone with the same credentials to fill his shoes. And everyone in the press will have a good reason for shouting “Saturday Night Massacre!”

  19. Does an Attorney General owe first loyalty to the person of the President, to the Constitution, or to the country at large? Looks like you believe the first choice. Why? When Sessions was sworn in, did he publicly swear allegiance to the president, above all else? I don’t think so.

    2. He swears allegiance like every government official does but his boss is the President. Documents don’t handle personnel management decisons particularly well and everybody has an opinion on what they mean. That’s why a swearee like a corporal gets courts martialed for disobeying a direct order despite his excuse being his sage interpretation of the First Amendment.

      1. mess

        Sessions’ boss may be Trump but Sessions allegiance is to the law and what he believes to be correct under the law and the proper procedures of his office. He was advised by his office to recuse himself as the correct approach. Allegiance to someone is never absolute in the public sector. For that sort of stuff you have to look to the Mafia, Audey Murphy movies, Cohen, etc. For Sessions to remain involved in the ‘Russis’ thing and be a Trump puppet would have been a degradation of the office and therefore the US. The office belongs to the United States and its people. The rest is just legal self gratification.

        Sessions still works for Trump but has some concept of what is correct.

      2. You mean, the oath that high government officials take when they assume office, to uphold and defend the Constitution, is just meaningless window dressing?

        1. This is the inherent contradiction of the oath to defend the Constitution or the Presidency. Do you defend and pledge loyalty to the office of the Presidency when a lying sack of sh*^ like Trump holds it? Or, do you defend and pledge loyalty to the office as it should be. Trump places himself above the office and demands loyalty to him. There comes a point when the ideal is more important than the occupant. Sessions made the right decision. Trump perverted the office. Trump has mastered perverting the law and business all of his life. Why should the Presidency be any different? Trump has presented himself as the savior of all that is wrong with America, in his own words and in his actions. So, this is what it is like when you elect a narcissistic megalomaniac for President; or dictator. The only good that has come so far from Trump as President is the establishing of the strength of the system, illustrated through Sessions, judges overturning Trump’s draconian moves, and the refusal of his own party to follow him absolutely on everything. The old saying goes that god(s)/life doesn’t give you anything that you can’t carry/bear. In overcoming this travesty, shame, disgrace, that is Trump, hopefully America will prove itself.

  20. Attorney General Jeff Session, “…a dupe which will live in infamy.”

    Either this man is a co-conspirator the Obama coup d’etat in America,

    or he is an irredeemable dunce.

    Never did he need to recuse himself

    and never should he have recused himself.

    Jeff Sessions was put in place by the King to defend the King.

    Jeff Sessions should have fallen on his sword for the King.

    There is absolutely no excuse for Jeff Sessions.

    1. We don’t have kings in this country. The closest we came was (a) the Imperial Presidency of Richard Nixon, who went to his death declaring that what the President does is legal, and (b) the Imperial Presidency of Barack Obama, who, after several years of failing to deal with the people’s representatives in Congress, declared “I have a pen and a phone” and ruled just as illegally as Richard Nixon.

      Sessions is saving Trump from himself. Trump would be well advised to recognize that fact and keep the man who restored the rule of law in the United States of America.

      1. The closest we came was (a) the Imperial Presidency of Richard Nixon,

        Ha ha ha. The IRS gladly assisted the White House in harassing the opposition, something Lois Lerner had a history of doing when she worked for the Federal Election Commission. The Nixon Era IRS turned the president’s tax returns over to the news media.

        1. I continue to be astonished at these “harassing the opposition” claims. Blatantly political organizations (mostly but not entirely on the right) were — and are — applying for tax exempt status, under section 501(c)3, which is for:

          501(c)(3) tax-exemptions apply to entities that are organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literary, or educational purposes, or for testing for public safety, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition, or for the prevention of cruelty to children, women, or animals. 501(c)(3) exemption applies also for any non-incorporated community chest, fund, cooperating association or foundation that is organized and operated exclusively for those purposes.

          You know, like the Boy Scouts or the ASPCA. So when various organizations applied for tax exemption, the IRS has (or had) to look at what the organization espouses, who its officers are, where it gets its money from, to see if they qualify under this category. But according to Nutchacha and, evidently, many others, to even ask these questions, is a form of “harassment.”

          1. If you want to make that claim you have to compare the nonprofit corporations that were approved to the ones that weren’t. If you do that you immediately see there was a bias at the IRS. It wasn’t vague. It was in your face.

            Lois Lerner was permitted to plead the fifth but never provided the information. When does that happen?

          2. I continue to be astonished at these “harassing the opposition” claims. Blatantly political organizations (mostly but not entirely on the right) were — and are — applying for tax exempt status, under section 501(c)3, which is for:

            You’re astonished because you fancy the political opposition should be harassed. Prof. Paul Caron has done yeoman work following this scandal.

            Were you ‘astonished’ when Lois Lerner took the 5th? How about when Douglas Shulman said he spent so much time at the White House attending the Easter Egg Roll.

          3. If the headline does not convey the fact that Trump’s claim is in question or open to doubt, based on known facts, then it is insufficiently informative .

      2. “We don’t have kings in this country.”
        _____________________________

        We don’t have swords either, do we, brainiac?

        To reiterate: Sessions is either a “deep state” co-conspirator or an irredeemable dunce.

Comments are closed.