Insubordination Versus Obstruction: Has The New York Times Given Trump His Long-Sought License To Clean House At Justice?

Rod_Rosenstein_US_AttorneyBelow is my column in the Hill newspaper of the New York Times story alleging that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein spoke to this staff near the start of his tenure about secretly taping President Donald Trump and organizing a cabinet effort to oust Trump through the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.  Rosenstein denies the accuracy of the story and some have said that he discussed the possibility in jest.  The New York Times has responded by saying that it was clear that the comments were made seriously and not in jest.

It is still not clear what Trump will do despite many (including myself) arguing that he should not fire Rosenstein.  On Sunday, however, Trump told Geraldo Rivera that this was ultimately the fault of Attorney General Jeff Sessions (who selected Rosenstein) and that “we will make a determination” about what to do about the story.

Here is the column:

It has been a year of ironies: President Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, once said he would take a bullet for Trump and now seeks to destroy him (and to do so pro bono). Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) once denounced Trump for suggesting Cruz’s father was a presidential assassin but now politically relies on and praises the man who called him “Lying Ted.”

The greatest irony of all, however, could be how the newspaper that Trump loves to call “the failing New York Times” succeeded in delivering to him what he has long wanted: a clean shot at firing Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and then installing a new AG to oversee special counsel Robert Mueller. To make this more bizarre, Trump could rely for all this on the man he publicly called on to be fired and possibly prosecuted — former FBI Acting Director Andrew McCabe.

The Times dropped a bombshell story late Friday that Rosenstein discussed secretly recording Trump and seeking cabinet support to force him out of office as being incapacitated under the 25h Amendment. Rosenstein denies the story as “inaccurate and factually incorrect,” insisting “there is no basis to invoke the 25th Amendment.”

However, McCabe reportedly wrote memos stating that Rosenstein did discuss the possibility of taping and entrapping the president. Trump has previously referred to McCabe’s memos as “fake.”

At least one source has said the comments about secret taping were made in jest. Of course, joking about secretly taping your boss or forcing him from office is not a huge improvement, particularly when you are technically controlling a special counsel’s investigation of the president. Even in jest, it fulfills Trump’s long narrative of a Justice Department set against him from the outset.

So how could the Times clear the way for Trump to clean house at Justice and end up with Mueller directly controlled by an attorney general of his choosing? Simple.

First, based on these reports, Trump could fire Rosenstein for being, at best, insubordinate or, at worst, conspiratorial. Trump could then put in place the person he hopes would replace Sessions one day, and that replacement would take over supervision of Mueller and his investigation. Trump could then wait until shortly after the November midterm elections to fire Sessions — as he is widely expected to do anyway — and name his new deputy attorney general as acting AG. He would then have the attorney general of his choosing to oversee Mueller, on an acting basis and pending confirmation.

Both the attorney general and deputy attorney general are subject to Senate confirmation. The president, however, can appoint an acting attorney general or acting deputy when the Senate is in recess. Trump could use a recess in coordination with the Republican-held Senate. Even if the Senate flips in the midterms, there will be a lame-duck — and potentially cooperative — Senate from November to January.

Trump also could simply make an appointment as he did when he fired Acting Attorney General Sally Yates after she ordered the Justice Department not to defend his immigration orders. The only wrinkle in this scenario is a long-debated statutory provision under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. The act allows a president to appoint an acting official when a Senate-confirmable officer “dies, resigns, or is otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office.” Yet, there has always been a good-faith objection to using the act to replace a fired official. With Yates, the issue was narrower because she was, in fact, refusing to perform her duties by ordering the department not to assist the sitting president — a position I believe was unwarranted and justified her termination.

This, however, would be different. This would be a straightforward, old-fashioned “Apprentice”-like firing. Other provisions in statutes and the Constitution refer to “removal from office” but not this act. Accordingly, Rosenstein could not challenge the right to fire him — but others could challenge the legitimacy of someone being appointed to replace him on an acting basis.

In the end, with either a continuing or a lame-duck Republican Senate, Trump likely could force out both Rosenstein and Sessions and use his longtime foes — the New York Times and Andrew McCabe — as supporting evidence. And he could do it before the November election, by citing the Times story and the McCabe memos to prove a now-irreconcilable relationship with Rosenstein.

None of this means that firing either of these men would be advisable or warranted.

I have said before that the president is wrong in his criticism of Sessions, who did the right thing in recusing himself from the Russia investigation. And while I have criticized Rosenstein over what I view as his conflicts of interest (as well as a poor choice of Mueller as special counsel, given Mueller’s own conflicts), I have opposed firing him or otherwise hindering the Mueller investigation. I still believe it is in the interests of the country for both Sessions and Rosenstein to stay in their positions for the duration of the Mueller investigation, if not beyond.

However, “the failing New York Times” relying on McCabe’s “fake memos” could give Trump the perfect “non-obstructive” reason to start the expected firings early. He could then have in place an acting or actual attorney general who orders the completion of the Russia investigation by a date certain. Even more striking is that it would be Rosenstein, not Trump, who loses his job over alleged ill-advised, offhand comments.

Merriam-Webster defines irony as that “incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events” and “the expected result.” If so, we are living in truly interesting and ironic times.

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

85 thoughts on “Insubordination Versus Obstruction: Has The New York Times Given Trump His Long-Sought License To Clean House At Justice?”

  1. I can’t see any reason Rod Rosenstein is allowed to stay if his conspiratorial actions detailed in the New York Times are true. And from what I have seen of Rosenstein in public, the idea that he would say something in jest seems ridiculous on its face. It is my opinion that he was a horrible choice for the position, and his continuing poor judgement seems to support that claim.

  2. Turley wrote, “Both the attorney general and deputy attorney general are subject to Senate confirmation. The president, however, can appoint an acting attorney general or acting deputy when the Senate is in recess. Trump could use a recess in coordination with the Republican-held Senate. Even if the Senate flips in the midterms, there will be a lame-duck — and potentially cooperative — Senate from November to January.”

    What’s even more interesting than Turley’s observations above is that Trump can, and might even have to, call an extraordinary session of Congress in order to get his nominee for the Supreme Court confirmed–thereby cancelling the recess before the midterm elections (which could, in theory, hurt Democratic Senators up for reelection more so than Republican Senators except for Ted Cruz). If Trump calls an extraordinary session of Congress for the sake of Kavanaugh’s confirmation, then Trump’s recess appointment of a replacement for Rosenstein will not happen. And The Senate is not going to rubber-stamp Trump’s nominee to replace Sessions under any circumstances–and especially not so, if Trump nominates Dana Boente. They might confirm Huber, though.

    OTOH, if Trump sticks with Kavanaugh, then the Republicans might soon need to gain seats in The Senate in order to get Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court confirmed. So, if the Republicans gain Senate seats in the upcoming midterm elections, then Trump might decide to wait till January to push for confirmation of his Supreme Court nominee (whether Kavanaugh or otherwise). In which case, Trump’s recess appointment of a replacement for Rosenstein might be back in play face up on the game table. Something tells me that McConnell can, and just might, use this predicament to leverage Trump into withdrawing Kavanaugh’s nomination in favor of either Coney Barrett or, McConnell’s choice, Thapar. Or not. There may be too many braids on the pretzel at this point.

    1. Speaking of excessively braided pretzels, one wonders exactly how badly Trump wants, or needs, Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court. When it comes to serving and protecting Trump’s interests, how much of a difference could one Associate Justice make? For instance, if Trump decided to drive the bus of state all the way to Crazytown by declaring 18 USC 371 Conspiracy to Defraud the United States unconstitutional and direct all superior and inferior officers of The Justice Department not to enforce 18 USC 371 ConFraudUS, then how many of the other eight Supreme Court Justices would back Kavanaugh’s play and simply shrug their shoulders while claiming The POTUS has the power? “There’s really nothing the rule of law can do about it.” I’d like to believe that Kavanaugh is the only one who would take that position. But I’m really not sure about much of anything, anymore. What do you think?

      1. L4Yoga enables David Benson, R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – Chief Justice Roberts was able to find a tax where none existed and convince 4 other justices it existed as well, so just dwell on that for awhile. And just think, the next replacement will be Attila the Hun. 🙂

  3. My vote: FIRE Rosenstein, AND BLOODY FIRE Jeff Sessions. I had high hopes for Sessions—He has been a total disaster! Hillary Clinton BELONGS IN Jail!!

    Oh dear panzy waist Sessions—It has now been almost two years—-Why isn’t Hillary Clinton in jail for a private email server??????? Fire the lot. And Fire Christopher Wray.

    1. As I understand it the soon to be released FISA warrants, which at least one Rosy signed, & all those FBI/DOJ memos that are about to be released were more then his heart could bare.

      He knows those docs would expose Rosies/DOJ/FBI’s Sources & Methods, Oops, he meant Lies & Spies targeting team Trump & their supporters.

      Like ole semi Retired Dr Jerone Corsi, Rosy/Mueller have been basically holding Dr Corsi Hostage in front of a Grand Jury for over two weeks now.

      Illegally I believe.

        1. Excerpted from the article linked above:

          What happens next isn’t entirely clear. Trump says “the Inspector General” — presumably Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz — has been “asked” to look into this “on an expedited basis.” But it’s not clear whether the documents will still be publicly released, or whether Horowitz has just been asked to review them behind closed doors for potential wrongdoing. It’s also unclear how quickly it will happen.

          The upshot, it seems, is that Trump tiptoed up to causing a dramatic crisis with the Justice Department and intelligence agencies … and then backed down. For now.

            1. Right Mr Kurtz let’s just have fun.

              I think one day soon those types Commie/Fascist that Threatened Ted Cruz & his wife yesterday are going to threaten to kill the wrong person & they’ll leave in a body bag.

              One of the azzholes is promoting his supporters to kill anyone born before 1962, I believe it was, I consider that a direct threat against others & I.

              At least here in Ok there are not many of them & LEO are fine shots.

              Also I understand some in Texas recent fell down.

              DHS/FBI have declared them Domestic Terrorist Groups with thousands of known/reported threats & acts of violence.

    1. So the story is in flux…. something. Trump won’t except resignation just yet?

      Trump & Rosey to meet Thursday?

      OT: Project Veritas reports their recent undercover work has caused the DOJ to fire/get resignation from some of the Bush/Clinton Commie authoritarian stay behind networks in the Govt.

    1. Mr. Hill, the main problem at The NYT is Maggie Haberman and her protégé, Mike Schmidt, who practice “access journalism,” in which they put the most favorable light, or the least damaging slant, on stories that Trump leaks to them in order to retain access to more “scoops” from Trump. Most of the rest of The Times reporters still practice real, investigative journalism, the old-fashioned way.

      In the case of The NYT story about Rosenstein, Haberman and Schmidt at first neglected to mention that the meeting, or meetings, at which Rosenstein made his comments occurred on March 16th, 2017–seven days after Trump fired Comey, three days before Rosenstein appointed Mueller, and also after Trump gave his interview to Lester Holt, not to mention after Trump’s Oval Office meeting with Lavrov and Kislyak. While Haberman and Schmidt added that detail in the updated version of the original story, they had already “spun” the first version to Trump’s advantage by making Rosenstein appear to be reacting to the firing of Comey rather than to what Trump told Holt, not to mention what Trump told Lavrov and Kislyak. The point being to make Rosenstein’s appointment of Mueller seem more erratic and less warranted than it actually was.

      I cancelled my subscription to The NYT several weeks ago, so I can’t register another protest that same way again.

      1. “I just asked 4 freshmen…”

        “Now Washington state has quite a decent public school system and WSU students come from the upper ranks of their graduating classes.”

        – David B. Benson
        _______________________________________________________________________________________________________
        So, Benson, you are a parasitic public worker living off of the public dole? Who’d a thunk? Help me out here.

        Can you pay taxes with taxes? Is it possible for workers paid with collected tax dollars to pay taxes with the tax dollars they just received? Can one pay taxes with taxes? So you don’t actually pay taxes, right?

        Should a public worker who is paid by elected officials be allowed to vote for those elected officials?

        Now you understand why the American Founders gave Americans a “…republic, if you can keep it,” Ben Franklin.

        A republic is not one man, one vote democracy; it is representative governance “…in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote.”

        The American Founders intended for criteria to be met by voters.
        I doubt being on the public dole is a criterion.
        ___________________________________________________
        Merriam Webster

        Republic

        b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law

    1. mespo – Hoover used to send the agents he didn’t like to Butte, MT. If you have ever been to Butte you would know what a hellhole that is. 😉

      1. Since there were a lot of agents that Hoover didn’t like, the Butte MT field office must have been wildly overstaffed !

  4. “Rosenstein discussed secretly recording Trump and seeking cabinet support to force him out of office as being incapacitated under the 25h Amendment.”

    Whether or not Mr Rosenstein advanced these ideas, at least hundreds of millions of other people around the world have said the same thing. Throughout history, national leaders have been removed because of their dysfunctional behavior. Retaliation against a person who made that suggestion would only advance the goal of the proposal.

    1. Whether or not Mr Rosenstein advanced these ideas, at least hundreds of millions of other people around the world have said the same thing.

      Yes, I’m quite sure German factory workers know all about an American constitutional provision ratified in 1967.

            1. That coming from a guy who believes every conservative on this blog just makes stuff up. Yeah, if something seems a particular way to you, the opposite is likely true.

                1. David Benson is the King of Making Stuff Up and owes me nine citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after seventeen weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – you ALWAYS Make Stuff Up. You couldn’t tell the truth if your life depended on it.

        1. i am glad to hear foreigners fear and dislike our Great Leader. Well that they should.

          its interesting that Nigeria and Vietnam and Philippines like him. Why are these fashioned right wing governments? Are not the Viets communists>? So much for Pew they stink

  5. Of course he should fire Rosenstein, who is a deceitful bureaucratic operator. The bogus Mueller investigation is Rosenstein’s baby. He’s a Justice Department lifer working to retain the Justice Department’s status as an unaccountable lawfare operation. It’s just a question of having the votes to confirm a successor. Once the President is assured of that, let the bloodbath begin.

      1. No, they don’t. So far it has indicted people on process crimes, indicted Russian internet trolls Mueller never expected to have to try, indicted Russian security officials that Mueller never expected to have to try, dusted off stale charges contra Paul Manafort’s financial transfers and tax returns (matters about which Trump would have no reason to know anything about) and instigated charges against Michael Cohen in regard to his tax returns, taxi medallions, as well as contrived nonsense about Stormy Daniels. None of the matters regarding Manafort, Gates, or Cohen required a special prosecutor or have anything to do with ‘Russian collusion’.

        Mueller and Rosenstein have concealed from the public the text of Mueller’s actual remit. The investigation began in July 2016 as a counter-intelligence investigation and then acquired a cheesy FISA warrant in order to spy on the Trump campaign. Since May of 2017, the investigation has continued in spite of a refusal to specify the crime being investigated, which is in defiance of the law on criminal investigations conducted by special prosecutors.

        We know about Sztrok, Page, and McCabe. We know about the channel from Fusion GPS to Bruce Ohr and Sally Yates. We know who Mueller hired. No amount of shuck and jive from people like you would cause us to forget that.

    1. i got a rig set up but i never thought it was worth it to use it. just seems to damned creepy. i guess i don’t have any important clients however. LOL

  6. The sourcing on The NYT “bombshell” is textbook “fake news.” Nobody described as a source for The NYT story was in the room with Rosenstein when Rosenstein made the comments at issue. Nobody described as a source for The NYT story has actually read McCabe’s memos. Instead, the sources for The NYT story claim to have been “briefed” about Rosenstein’s comments. If so, then, at best, someone who has access to the copies of the memos that McCabe left behind at the FBI–rather than the copies of those same memos that McCabe sent to Mueller’s shop–might have conducted the “briefing” of the unnamed people described as sources for The NYT story. Now who would that “someone” be? Who has access to the copies of the memos that McCabe left behind at the FBI?

    Could it be, shall one suppose, Dana Boente? How should I know? But if it were Dana Boente, and if Trump seeks to give Boente Rosenstein’s job, then would Turley sound the alarm about Boente’s “conflict of interest” in briefing anonymous sources for an NYT story about an ongoing investigation so that Boente could get Rosenstein’s job? How should I know? Who else wants Rosenstein’s job?

    1. L4Yoga enables David Benson, R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – according to reports, Lisa Page and the usual suspects were there. McCabe is not the only one who took notes of the meeting.

      1. I’m not unfamiliar with the story, Ubi Schulte. And there were two meetings in one day. The comment about wearing a wire was a strictly rhetorical question directed at McCabe who was demanding that Rosenstein aggressively investigate Trump. The comment about the 25th amendment was allegedly made at the second meeting late that same day. But Lisa Page, who was at the second meeting, but not at the first meeting, says that Rosenstein did not say anything about the 25th Amendment at the second meeting.

        BTW, how the blazes does Gym Jordan know anything at all about Rosenstein’s comments? He seems to think he knows something about it.

        1. L4Yoga enables David Benson, R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – Jim Jordan has the testimony of several people to rely on, including Lisa Page. I am not sure Rosenstein was being rhetorical or humorous. I understand he was agitated and was raising his voice.

          1. Have you heard the news about the second Kavanaugh accuser from his Yale fraternity days? You know this story about Rosenstein is at least two days old. Why bring it up today?

            1. L4Yoga enables David Benson, R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – Turley brings things up when he is ready. His blog, his topics. Your blog, your topics. Couldn’t be easier.

              1. Rosenstein was agitated because the FBI officials in the meeting with him were blaming Rosenstein for Comey’s firing while insinuating that Rosenstein couldn’t be trusted to continue the Russia investigation. It was clearly and distinctly a rhetorical question. What do you want me to do, Andy? Wear a wire? This is all Trump trying to get more double-dipper’s benefits from his own whipsaw routine. And I seriously want to know if Boente had anything to do with briefing the anonymous sources for The NYT story. Because that’d be almost exactly the same thing as the unauthorized self-serving leak that got McCabe fired. Only worse if Boente is angling for Rosenstein’s job.

                1. Seriously though, Trump whipsawed McCabe into leaking the FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation, then used that leak as an excuse to fire McCabe. That’s a double-dipper’s benefit. Trump, Giuliani and the NYO of the FBI whipsawed Comey into reopening the Clinton email investigation, then used that as an excuse to fire Comey. That’s another double-dipper’s benefit. Trump whipsawed Rosenstein into writing a memo critical of Comey’s handling of the Clinton email investigation, then told Lester Holt that he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation and went on to tell Lavrov and Kislyak that the pressure was off because he had just fired that nut job, Comey. And that’s what the heated exchange between McCabe and Rosenstein was all about. So now Trump is trying to get yet another double-dipper’s benefit from his own whipsaw routine.

                  And Maggie Haberman and Mike Schmidt of The NYT are only too happy to carry Trump’s water for him yet one more time. They will no doubt continue to do so unless every subscriber to The NYT cancels his or her subscription and write letters to the editors demanding that they should fire Maggie Haberman and Mike Schmidt–STAT.

  7. Oh, please. If there’s nothing to the Mueller investigation, the why won’t Trump just let it run its course, instead of conniving every possible way to stop or interfere with it, including plotting ways to fire Mueller, directly and indirectly,

    1. Because we already know that they are willing to set people up and charge them with the crime of lying to an investigator as in the case of General Flynn. And knowing now that they didn’t believe he was lying but went with it anywaywhile destroying this man’s reputation and costing him his life’s savings to d ed fend himself is enough reason.

        1. Stop being an ass. There are typing errors in her post, but the message is very coherent. You simply choose to be an ass rather than respond to the substance of the post.

          1. In a letter dated May 11 to FBI Director Christopher A. Wray and Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) quoted from notes taken by a “career, nonpartisan law enforcement officer” who attended a March 15, 2017, briefing by Comey. The agent quoted Comey as saying the FBI agents “saw nothing that led them to believe [he was] lying.” Grassley also quoted from committee staff notes that “agents saw no change in his demeanor or tone that would say he was being untruthful.”

            The majority report of the House Intelligence Committee includes a finding that FBI agents “did not detect any deception during Flynn’s interview.” As evidence, the report quotes Comey from a private briefing on March 2, 2017: “the agents … discerned no physical indications of deception. They didn’t see any change in posture, in tone, in inflection, in eye contact. They saw nothing that indicated to them that he knew he was lying to them.”

            Here’s what Pamela Barber said, “. . . willing to set people up and charge them with the crime of lying to an investigator as in the case of General Flynn. And knowing now that they didn’t believe he was lying . . .”

            Please notice the difference between what Pamela Barber said versus what the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn said. Those statement do not mean what Pamela Barber thinks they mean. And here’s why not: Flynn was an army intelligence officer for many years. Flynn was trained to conceal “physical indications of deception,” such as “change in posture, in tone, in inflection, in eye contact . . . ”

            Now here’s what Ivan said, ” . . . the message is very coherent . . . respond to the substance of the post.”

            The substance of Pamela Barber’s post is disinformation. The notion that Pamela Barber’s disinformation is also coherent assumes that Pamela Barber knowingly, willingly posted disinformation as the substance of her message. It’s far likelier that Pamela Barber couldn’t detect disinformation if it bit her on her . . . hind quarters.

          2. Now here’s the kicker: The FBI agents knew that Flynn had lied to them because they had signal intercepts of Flynn’s conversation with Kislyak. And because the alternate interpretation is that the National Security Adviser couldn’t remember discussing sanctions with the Russian Ambassador to the US because he was confused–albeit, without showing any “physical indications of confusion.”

      1. Did you know that KT McFarland has changed her statements to Mueller to correct the record about her conversations with Flynn about discussing sanctions with Kislyak? Did you also know that McFarland did so because Manafort is now a cooperating witness who can contradict both McFarland’s and Flynn’s statements about the meetings between Flynn and Kislyak and the strategizing with McFarland and Trump at Mar-A-Lago before those meetings? There will be more defections from Trump’s Joint Defense Agreement. The boa constrictor is tightening its coils.

        1. L4Yoga enables David Benson, R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – did we know that Mueller is leaking like a sieve again?

          1. KT McFarland has a lawyer of her own, Ubi Schulte. She and her lawyer are no longer part of Trump’s omerta. OMG. I meant, JDA.

      2. Pam: “we” don’t know any such thing. This is Faux News spin. No one can “set up” someone to lie. You either lie or you tell the truth.

    2. If there’s nothing to the Mueller investigation, the why won’t Trump just let it run its course,

      Well for one, there is no finish line short of President Trump no longer in office. Two, Lawfare is a cancer on this republic and it needs to be cut out.

      1. The NYT has been carrying water for Trump the whole way through–as in before Trump even announced his candidacy. Maggie Haberman and Mike Schmitd are the utmost shameless “access journalists” in the field. The dramatic irony that Turley sees is the result of a Punch and Judy show that Trump and Haberman have been performing since at least 2015. It’s all staged and choreographed. And Schmidt’s in on it, too.

          1. Read the description of the sources for The NYT story about Rosenstein. That’s not journalism. That’s fake news. If Haberman and Schmidt are not carrying water for Trump, then Haberman and Schmidt are Beavis and Butthead.

            1. L4Yoga enables David Benson, R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – Haberman and Schmidt can be Beavis and Butthead without carrying water for Trump. They were born that way.

              1. Fine the. Have it your way. Maggie and Mike, like Beavis and Butthead, were born with Trump’s water on their brains.

  8. They do seem to drop around where they want. I’m going to blame this one on the Irish or the Italians. We’ve been ganging up on the Russians far too much. For why? The pasta was awful today and there is no Irish dining within 3500 miles.

    PS one reason to get rid of Sessions AND Rosenstein and more is to regain the trust of the citizens (that means Constitutionalists) and use bilge pumps as well as drains.

    1. Public Service Request: please post a version of your post which has been interpreted into English. That is all.

      this is to Mikey

  9. How so? No President needs the permission of anyone to fire an insubordinate employee. Granted Sessions should be Von Gizzardburger ready to croak at any time it should end up no less than 6-3 and probably 7-2 by the time it’s over.

    Gorsuch made it even 4-4 and I noticed the Chief Justice votes constitutional most of the time.

    Free At Last! Free At Last!

    1. Typing to fast I’m used to waiting two mintues for the next key stroke to show up.

      “Granted Sessions should have been the one to discipline Rosenstein on a number of things such as failure to supervise subordinates himself and failure to carry out directives on other investigations. But he didn’t and apparently Sessions won’t (closet RINO?) won’t do much of anything.

      Put in some real leadership and watch the resignations and that is a GOOD Thing.

    2. What would you predict would happen if the SC became7-2 very conservative? How would America be reshaped? Just curious ….

Leave a Reply