Jeff Sessions was a sad disappointment as AG, but he’s a good man. I wish him well.

So much for the fantasy that Sessions was secretly, stealthily, working on investigations that would put half the swamp in prison. Oh man oh man, any day now the indictments were gonna fly!

Diddley. That's what Sessions did in two years. He didn't even make it all the way to diddley squat.

quote:

Originally posted by jsbcody:
On paper, appointing Sessions as AG looked great. In reality, we lost his senate seat for a couple years and he didn't do JACK SH*T the whole time he was AG. There should have been a thorough house cleaning of the Just Us Department turning it back to the Justice Department. While some of the cancerous deep state has been removed, there is a lot more that needs to go.

When Trump was elected, I heard Larry Conners (local sharp radio guy and reporter) interview a conservative Law Professor/Former Assistant AG who said that Trump needed to appoint an aggressive AG and it would take first 2-3 years of President Trump's first term of office to clean out the Justice Department. As we know that didn't happen and now the President has to appoint someone to clean house all while different screaming Hairs of various House committees look over their shoulder and try to tie the administration up with "investigation" after "investigation".

This is not entirely true. The Sessions drama was a ploy. He has been working with Huber on the sealed indictments(treason, sedition, human trafficking, etc.). The reason no one hears about this is there are no leaks, so the media believes they have nothing. The house of cards is coming down soon, removing sessions was a clearing move. Sessions was a decoy, Trump made the left accept him so he could operate without massive scrutiny, if he was obstructing Trump then he was the Democrats friend...the enemy of my enemy is my friend, but what if the enemy of your enemy was just an acting gig to bait the real enemy? The house was a calculated loss that will end up in a gain. We kept the senate, this makes the Dem house impotent. Their antics going forward will add fuel to the fire growing in the Republican base, as well as alienate more Democrats who awaken to their level of crazy.

quote:

Originally posted by 226Reasons:

quote:

Originally posted by jsbcody:
On paper, appointing Sessions as AG looked great. In reality, we lost his senate seat for a couple years and he didn't do JACK SH*T the whole time he was AG. There should have been a thorough house cleaning of the Just Us Department turning it back to the Justice Department. While some of the cancerous deep state has been removed, there is a lot more that needs to go.

When Trump was elected, I heard Larry Conners (local sharp radio guy and reporter) interview a conservative Law Professor/Former Assistant AG who said that Trump needed to appoint an aggressive AG and it would take first 2-3 years of President Trump's first term of office to clean out the Justice Department. As we know that didn't happen and now the President has to appoint someone to clean house all while different screaming Hairs of various House committees look over their shoulder and try to tie the administration up with "investigation" after "investigation".

This is not entirely true. The Sessions drama was a ploy. He has been working with Huber on the sealed indictments(treason, sedition, human trafficking, etc.). The reason no one hears about this is there are no leaks, so the media believes they have nothing. The house of cards is coming down soon, removing sessions was a clearing move. Sessions was a decoy, Trump made the left accept him so he could operate without massive scrutiny, if he was obstructing Trump then he was the Democrats friend...the enemy of my enemy is my friend, but what if the enemy of your enemy was just an acting gig to bait the real enemy? The house was a calculated loss that will end up in a gain. We kept the senate, this makes the Dem house impotent. Their antics going forward will add fuel to the fire growing in the Republican base, as well as alienate more Democrats who awaken to their level of crazy.

Ha ha ha. All planned out, huh? No leaks? In DC? Not sure if serious.

I don't typically last more than 10 seconds listening to CNN, however today is different.

Quite fun listening to them all torn up about Sessions and what this means for Mueller.

Guess we were proven right again.
Sessions was not secretly doing his job.

As stated earlier in this thread.
Sessions was doing diddly and didn't even make it to squat.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: kimber1911,

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
Ha ha ha. All planned out, huh? No leaks? In DC? Not sure if serious.

Huber is in Utah. And very serious. If I'm wrong I will own it.

quote:

Originally posted by 226Reasons:

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
Ha ha ha. All planned out, huh? No leaks? In DC? Not sure if serious.

Huber is in Utah. And very serious. If I'm wrong I will own it.

What is the timeline of this super secret impending slew of indictments?

It’s not happening. Sessions was a nice old man who needed to go because he couldn’t fathom how broken DOJ is nor find the gumption to do anything about it.

Edited to add— I love how trump did this the day after midterms. I bet the dems are peeved their preening and self congratulations on taking the house has been usurped by Trump dominating the news cycle again. Dems are always playing catch up to Trump.

More on Sessions and Huber

https://www.realclearpolitics....cial_prosecutor.html

Janice Rogers Brown who served along side Kavanaugh on the California Supreme court is being mentioned as Sessions replacement. Democrats blocked her appointment for 2 years before being confirmed.

Having a Kavanaugh ally as AG is really going to make the Dems squeal and howl!!

The rest of Trump's list looks like this. Others being considered include Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, retiring Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, former Attorney General William P. Barr and Trump personal attorney Rudy Giuliani.

Between this and Acosta being banned from the White House Trump is again controlling the news cycle. So even with the Dems winning the House they can't enjoy their little victory Trump knows how to keep that poopy pants look on their face! He truly is a joy to watch in action!

Almost forgot Link

Oddball's "You're Not a Wartime Consigliere" says it all.

Sessions never accepted that the DoJ had become a corrupt department that needed a thorough house cleaning. He had to go.

Article by Andy McCarthy below.

I don't agree w McCarthy sometimes, but his inputs are usually worth reading.

https://www.nationalreview.com...nt-excellent-choice/

cut and pastes

Is Matthew Whitaker a placeholder who can manage Special Counsel Robert Mueller until President Trump decides on a permanent successor for ousted Attorney General Jeff Sessions? It’s possible, but it’s also conceivable that Mr. Whitaker’s temporary gig as acting attorney general is an audition for the job. Feeling like he’s been burned once, and then saddled for the better part of two years with an AG he could no longer abide, the president may want a trial run before he settles on a “permanent” replacement. (I use scare-quotes because what, these days, is permanent?)

To repeat what I had occasion to say about a week ago, I am a Sessions fan, and I think he got a raw deal. That said, it was time for Trump and Sessions to part ways. The former AG should be proud that he performed admirably and was a very effective proponent of the president’s agenda. I continue to believe his recusal from the so-called Russia investigation was premature and overbroad, but there is no doubt that a recusal of some extent would have been necessary. The president is kidding himself if he thinks otherwise. And it was not Sessions but Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein — a Trump appointee — who decided to name a special counsel.

That is all water under the bridge at this point.

Matthew Whitaker joined the Trump Justice Department as Sessions’s chief of staff in October 2017. The date is relevant. The president has named him as acting attorney general under the Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 (the relevant provisions are codified at Sections 3345 and 3346 of Title 5, U.S. Code). There has been some commentary suggesting that because Whitaker was in a job (chief of staff) that did not require Senate confirmation, he could not become the “acting officer” in a position (AG) that calls for Senate confirmation. Not so. The Vacancies Act enables the president to name an acting officer, who may serve as such for 210 days, as long as the person named has been working at the agency or department for at least 90 days in a fairly high-ranking position. Whitaker qualifies.

Whitaker has excellent credentials and influential backers. He served as Attorney General John Ashcroft’s chief of staff until 2004, when President Bush appointed him United States attorney for the southern district of Iowa

I must say I am amused by the media pearl-clutching over the fact that Whitaker will presumably be assuming supervisory responsibility over the Mueller investigation.

Since Mueller came into the picture, that responsibility has been exercised, quite passively, by Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein. He appointed Mueller on May 17, 2017, to take the reins of the Russia investigation that had been ongoing for several months. As I have detailed, Rosenstein has been laboring under blatant conflicts of interest .

To summarize, the special counsel has been scrutinizing the president’s firing of former FBI director James Comey in the obstruction aspect of his investigation. Rosenstein was a prominent participant in the firing and is thus an important witness. Rosenstein, moreover, signed off on the last FISA warrant application for surveillance against former Trump-campaign adviser Carter Page, which is under investigation by Congress and DOJ’s inspector general. Rosenstein, using the Mueller investigation as part of his rationale, has stonewalled Congress’s demands for relevant information. The surveillance of Page is plainly germane to Mueller’s Russia investigation. Since Rosenstein’s actions are under scrutiny — and given that this is in addition to the just-described, patent conflict posed by his involvement in Comey’s firing — one would think Rosenstein would want to step aside rather than have his ethical sensibility questioned.

While the press remains remarkably indifferent to Rosenstein’s conflicts, it is all over what are said to be Whitaker’s — stemming from an opinion essay he wrote for CNN a couple of months before joining the Trump administration. It is being alleged that Whitaker contended that any probe of the president’s finances would be beyond the scope of Mueller’s jurisdiction; he is further accused of using President Trump’s derogatory phrase — “witch hunt” — to belittle Mueller’s investigation. That is an overwrought distortion of what Whitaker wrote.

The New York Times had asked President Trump if Mueller would be acting outside his mandate if he began investigating the Trump family finances. The president responded, “I think that’s a violation. Look, this is about Russia.” The burden of Whitaker’s op-ed was to defend Trump’s statement, which — while curt and ambiguous — did not claim that Mueller would be in the wrong if his inquiry into Trump’s finances had some good-faith connection to Russia.

Whatever Trump may have meant, Whitaker was emphatic about what he found objectionable: the notion of an investigation unconnected to Russia — i.e., a fishing expedition into Trump’s finances without any articulable nexus to what Mueller was appointed to investigate, namely, Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.

In part, Whitaker was countering the contentions posited by, well, your humble correspondent. I’ve maintained that Rosenstein’s order appointing Mueller set no real limits on the investigation. Having now reviewed Whitaker’s interpretation, I still respectfully disagree; but he nevertheless presented a forceful legal argument, based on a close reading of Rosenstein’s order, for the proposition that there are limits on the special counsel.

Matthew Whitaker is well credentialed and appears to be an excellent choice to assume the duties of attorney general, at least temporarily (and perhaps permanently, though under the Vacancy Act, he could not be nominated to be AG while serving as acting AG). The removal of Rod Rosenstein as Mueller’s overseer is inevitable and overdue — which is not a condemnation of him, but a recognition that he should not be supervising an investigation in which his own actions are implicated. Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation appears to be at a ripe stage, and if Acting Attorney General Whitaker helps steer it to a prompt conclusion, that is all to the good.

quote:

Originally posted by 226Reasons:

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
Ha ha ha. All planned out, huh? No leaks? In DC? Not sure if serious.

Huber is in Utah. And very serious. If I'm wrong I will own it.

President Trump is extraordinarily brilliant and strategic beyond what many people can fathom, but if you are even half-right, I will be shocked; happy, very happy, but shocked.



.

quote:

Originally posted by lastmanstanding:

quote:

Originally posted by c1steve:
Hoping it is Trey Gowdy, the next bulldog.

Gowdy is a big Mueller fan boy. And he's got a little of the swamp in him just enough to make him a ineffective AG just like Sessions. Trey is fine where he is. His best days were as a criminal prosecutor in South Carolina. He put some bad guys in prison and he should go back to doing that.

I really enjoyed Gowdy's rants but what bite did we ever see beyond his bark?

Quote about Whitaker's wife:

"She currently holds a Professional Engineer license in Iowa. Her past design experience includes wastewater treatment design, biosolids treatment, biogas handling, odor control and disinfection."

Looks like she needs a high level job at the DOJ as well....

Whaaaaaaaaaat!!!

Chris Christie being considered to replace Sessions as attorney general

This could be good.

I heard Chris Christie's name floated last night by Laura Ingraham. It certainly wouldn't be the worst idea in the world. I think he'd do very well actually. He and the President see to have a good, trusting relationship.

The only hiccup would be the bridgegate nonsense, but with an overwhelming majority in the Senate, that shouldn't be too much of a problem.

Yeah...that's a great idea.



I'm sure he'll be all over prosecuting the Hadji administration and the Clinton Crime Family.

I am glad Sessions is out as AG - now perhaps we will start to see some justice and retribution applied to those that have done so much damage to the country

as I recall, Sessions was a good Senator - wonder if he might go back after that slot?

quote:

I heard Chris Christie's name floated last night by Laura Ingraham.

I've always thought Chris Christie was a weasel, not to be trusted.
But I'll support anyone who will seriously go after Hillary Clinton and the rest of the Democrat criminals. Drain the swamp!

I'm all for the rule of law, but at this point in time, I hope Trump appoints a democrat hating rabid freaking dog.

I want to see some assholes go down hard.

There are better choices out there than Christi. His performance with Bridgegate and other issues has left me cold regarding him. Move on Trump. Please move on.