Jeff Sessions out as attorney general

Via:  trout-giggles  •  2 weeks ago  •  127 comments

Jeff Sessions out as attorney general

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump on Wednesday asked Attorney General Jeff Sessions to resign, effectively firing him.


Sessions' resignation letter has been delivered to White House chief of staff John Kelly.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is expected to remain in charge of the Russia investigation and special counsel Robert Mueller.


rump did not answer a direct question about Sessions during his news conference Wednesday, saying that on the whole he is "extremely" satisfied with his Cabinet.







This story is breaking and will be updated.

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Trout Giggles
1  seeder  Trout Giggles    2 weeks ago

That didn't take long.....

 
 
badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη
1.1  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη  replied to  Trout Giggles @1    2 weeks ago

Very predictable. I suspect the new AG will be a Trumper.

My guess is lizard face, Trey Gowdy.

 
 
Tacos!
1.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @1.1    2 weeks ago
I suspect the new AG will be a Trumper.

I would think any AG would be a supporter of the president appointing him. Sessions himself was like the first prominent politician to endorse Trump.

 
 
Dulay
1.1.2  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @1.1.1    2 weeks ago
I would think any AG would be a supporter of the president appointing him. Sessions himself was like the first prominent politician to endorse Trump.

Yet that support was insufficient for Trump. Trump wanted Sessions to take an oath of loyalty to him instead of to the Constitution. It looks like Matt Whitaker has convinced Trump that he will exhibit the proper amount to fealty, damn the Constitution. 

 
 
Krishna
1.1.3  Krishna  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @1.1    2 weeks ago
My guess is lizard face, Trey Gowdy.

What about Turtle Face (Mitch McConnell?).

Seriously, his face really looks like a Turtle!

(Not that being some sort of Reptile should disqualify someone from holding office)

Conspiracy: Lizard People Rule the World

 
 
JBB
1.1.4  JBB  replied to  Krishna @1.1.3    2 weeks ago

Just In - "Turtle Americans decry unfair comparisons to Mitch McConnell".

 
 
Raven Wing
1.2  Raven Wing  replied to  Trout Giggles @1    2 weeks ago

Trump can now shut down the Muller investigation at his whim via the new man who will be in charge of the investigation. I would not be surprised if that is not on the agenda for tomorrow. There must be something Trump is really afraid of to take such actions. 

However, where or not the Muller investigation is closed or not, the information it has now disclosed is enough for other law enforcement agencies to take up that don't come under Trump's thumb. But, he is a bit too sure of himself to see that possibility. 

But, at least Sessions can go home and take a deep breath now knowing that Trump the Dragon is off his neck.  

And I have to wonder just how long the new guy will last if he in fact upholds the Constitution, which Trump hates with a passion and considers it a detriment to his total dictatorship. 

 
 
Krishna
1.2.1  Krishna  replied to  Raven Wing @1.2    2 weeks ago
There must be something Trump is really afraid of to take such actions

1. I'm pretty sure he's afraid of what the Mueller Investigation will uncover. (Actually its probably because of what the Investigation has already uncovered).

2. And there's another reason as well. By law Sessions was required to recuse himself from being involved with The Mueller Investigation-- and he did. Ever since Sessions recused himself, Trump wanted to dump him-- but his advisors explained that that would probably be considered an Obstruction of Justice.

If Trump fired sessions before the mid-terms he would look really bad-- so he decided to wait for after the Midtermss so it wouldn't cost republicans votes in the Midterms.

 
 
Kavika
2  Kavika     2 weeks ago

Another supporter thrown under the bus...

 
 
devangelical
2.1  devangelical  replied to  Kavika @2    2 weeks ago

... and a Democrat has his old job back home in Alabama. Bwah ha ha ha ha

 
 
epistte
2.1.1  epistte  replied to  devangelical @2.1    2 weeks ago
... and a Democrat has his old job back home in Alabama. Bwah ha ha ha ha

Jeff Sessions was one confederate monument that Trump didn't have a problem removing.  Good riddance to racist trash.

 
 
Krishna
2.1.2  Krishna  replied to  epistte @2.1.1    2 weeks ago

Jeff Sessions was one confederate monument that Trump didn't have a problem removing.  Good riddance to racist trash.

And here's the irony-- Trump values "loyalty" to him above all else. But it comes at the expense of Republican effectiveness.

Why? Because Sessions probably did more to advance the far-Right agenda than any other politician! He constantly worked very, very actively to advance that agenda--- in many cases things that don't make big headlines. But Trump has a YUGE Ego.  His obsessed with loyalty to himself! Not only does he put his own EGo-obseesed desires ahead of the good og the country, but IMO he puts it ahead of even his own Party.

 
 
epistte
2.1.3  epistte  replied to  Krishna @2.1.2    2 weeks ago
Why? Because Sessions probably did more to advance the far-Right agenda than any other politician! He constantly worked very, very actively to advance that agenda--- in many cases things that don't make big headlines. But Trump has a YUGE Ego.  His obsessed with loyalty to himself! Not only does he put his own EGo-obseesed desires ahead of the good og the country, but IMO he puts it ahead of even his own Party.

Trump has proved many times that he doesn't see that he is part of a larger group(s) and that he must put the interests of the whole in front ahead of his own personal interest. People like Trump are the worst type of personality to be in public office where they are to be serving others. 

 
 
Krishna
2.1.4  Krishna  replied to  epistte @2.1.3    2 weeks ago
Trump has proved many times that he doesn't see that he is part of a larger group(s) and that he must put the interests of the whole in front ahead of his own personal interest. People like Trump are the worst type of personality to be in public office where they are to be serving others. 

And there's something else I realized a while back. While its obvious Trump values loyalty to him above all else-- that doesn's go both ways! Trump himself is one of the most (if not the most) disloyal to his appointees and staff of any politician! 

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
3  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו    2 weeks ago

The country just gave Scumbag a kick in the balls so now he's asking for another one.  He doesn't care about his presidency any more.  This is just desperation to try to keep from going to prison.

 
 
Tacos!
3.1  Tacos!  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @3    2 weeks ago
This is just desperation to try to keep from going to prison.

How would this impact that? It's not as if Sessions was going to be trying to send him to prison.

 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Tacos! @3.1    2 weeks ago
How would this impact that? It's not as if Sessions was going to be trying to send him to prison.

Sessions replacement will not have recused himself from the Russia investigation, so he can either take charge himself, order Rosenstein to do something about it, or fire Rosenstein and replace him with someone willing to impede/fire Mueller for him.

 
 
lady in black
4  lady in black    2 weeks ago

Won't stop the Mueller investigation.....

 
 
Tacos!
4.1  Tacos!  replied to  lady in black @4    2 weeks ago
Won't stop the Mueller investigation.....

In spite of what all the hair-pullers and teeth gnashes keep saying/implying.

 
 
Ozzwald
4.2  Ozzwald  replied to  lady in black @4    2 weeks ago

Won't stop the Mueller investigation.....

Yes, it could.  All Trump needs to do is appoint someone willing to do something so obviously political (fire Mueller) that there is no doubt as to its reason.  Someone like Nunes.
 
 
Tacos!
4.2.1  Tacos!  replied to  Ozzwald @4.2    2 weeks ago

I think you'd need a really good reason. We haven't heard one yet.

 
 
Ozzwald
4.2.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.1    2 weeks ago
I think you'd need a really good reason.

Why would you think that?  Trump has been wanting to fire Sessions for over a year because Session couldn't intervene with Mueller, Session's replacement will not be under the same recusal restraints.

As long as Trump has the Senate to block any impeachment proceedings he is covered.  Unfortunately for Trump, he has no guarantee that firing Mueller wouldn't push his puppets over the edge and force them to grow spines.  But from all reports Mueller is closing in on Trump Jr. and his love child Ivanka and her hubby.  Desperation may push him to do something unwise...again.

 
 
JBB
4.2.3  JBB  replied to  Ozzwald @4.2.2    2 weeks ago

If the House impeaches Trump the Senate must try him.

Dems held the Senate when the gop impeached Clinton...

I suppose if the Senate Dem's case presented against Trump is strong enough then enough Senate goppers could vote to convict. It would depend on the evidence at that point. If Trump is overwhelmingly proven guilty in the public's mind of conspiring with Putin to illegally affect our election then the gop might have to convict him to save themselves and their party...

 
 
Tacos!
4.2.4  Tacos!  replied to  Ozzwald @4.2.2    2 weeks ago
Trump has been wanting to fire Sessions for over a year because Session couldn't intervene with Mueller

If you really believe that, then he should have done it already if he doesn't need a good reason.

 
 
JBB
4.2.5  JBB  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.4    2 weeks ago

Firings for cause are one thing but to stop an investigation is obstruction...

 
 
Texan1211
4.2.6  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @4.2.5    2 weeks ago

The investigation has not been stopped, ergo, no obstruction.

 
 
Ozzwald
4.2.7  Ozzwald  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.4    2 weeks ago
If you really believe that, then he should have done it already if he doesn't need a good reason.

Republican, in particular Lindsey Graham, told him that they would start impeachment proceedings if he did that.  Trump is only firing him now because graham indicated that Congressional Republicans would allow it after elections.  They assume that their electorate will forget about them allowing Trump to get away with it over 2 years to the next election.

 
 
Ozzwald
4.2.8  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.6    2 weeks ago
The investigation has not been stopped, ergo, no obstruction.

Hasn't even been 1 full day yet.  Statements have already been made by Trump and Matthew Whitaker about the Mueller investigation however.  This shows what was the top most reasoning behind the firing.

 
 
Texan1211
4.2.9  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @4.2.8    2 weeks ago

Dems have been proclaiming that Trump would fire Sessions for `months now. 

Dems have been saying Trump would try to stop the investigation.

Hasn't happened.

Any luck going through my old posts yet?

 
 
MrFrost
4.2.10  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.6    2 weeks ago
The investigation has not been stopped, ergo, no obstruction.

I think you forgot about Preet Bahara, Sally Yates and James Comey. All were fired because of the investigation. The special counsel was formed BECAUSE he fired Comey. 

 
 
Krishna
4.2.11  Krishna  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.1    2 weeks ago
I think you'd need a really good reason.

Yes, he would. But Trump and his appointee wouldn't need a good reason.

If he did it without a good reason, Trump would lose support from many people-- even some Republicans. But so what? The election is over. And in two years many many other reasons will cause people to forget.

 
 
Krishna
4.2.12  Krishna  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.4    2 weeks ago
If you really believe that, then he should have done it already

Nope. It would make him looks really really bad (and open himself even more to charges of obstruction of justice). Which would have really hurt Republicans badly in the mid-terms. So he (literally!) waited 'till the Midterms were over. 

 
 
Tacos!
4.2.13  Tacos!  replied to  JBB @4.2.5    2 weeks ago
Firings for cause are one thing

Truth be told, legally, Trump doesn't even need a reason - good or bad - to fire someone. He has the authority to fire anyone working in the executive branch.

 
 
Tacos!
4.2.14  Tacos!  replied to  Krishna @4.2.11    2 weeks ago
Trump would lose support from many people-- even some Republicans. But so what? The election is over.

He wasn't up for reelection, so I don't see how having support from them would mean anything as far as this election goes.

 
 
Ozzwald
4.2.15  Ozzwald  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.13    2 weeks ago
Truth be told, legally, Trump doesn't even need a reason - good or bad - to fire someone.

Truth be told, Trump wants to fire Mueller for only 1 reason, to obstruct justice.

 
 
Texan1211
4.2.16  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @4.2.15    2 weeks ago

Then why hasn't he fired him????????????????????

That isn't making a bit of sense.

 
 
Tacos!
4.2.17  Tacos!  replied to  Ozzwald @4.2.15    2 weeks ago
Trump wants to fire Mueller

There is literally no legal bar to firing him. If he wanted to, he could do it.

 
 
sandy-2021492
4.2.18  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.16    2 weeks ago

Because somebody on his staff has more sense than he does, and has prevented him from shooting himself in the foot.

 
 
Tacos!
4.2.19  Tacos!  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.2.18    2 weeks ago

Why does it never seem to occur to anyone on the Left that Trump doesn't need to fire Mueller? It's a distraction; annoying; frustrating; all of it. But Trump doesn't need to fire him because he's confident he didn't do anything wrong. It's the most obvious answer, but the media and the Democrats won't even consider the possibility.

 
 
sandy-2021492
4.2.20  sandy-2021492  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.19    2 weeks ago
It's the most obvious answer,

It being the answer you like best doesn't make it the most obvious answer.

 
 
Texan1211
4.2.21  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.2.18    2 weeks ago

Nice theory, but can you support it with any facts?

And who in the WH has the authority to prevent the President from doing it?

 
 
Dulay
4.2.22  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.19    2 weeks ago
Why does it never seem to occur to anyone on the Left that Trump doesn't need to fire Mueller? It's a distraction; annoying; frustrating; all of it. But Trump doesn't need to fire him because he's confident he didn't do anything wrong. It's the most obvious answer, but the media and the Democrats won't even consider the possibility.

Perhaps because Trump has stated ad nauseam that he was 'not happy' with Sessions SPECIFICALLY because he recused himself from the Russia investigation. If Trump is so fucking 'confident he didn't do anything wrong', WHY does he constantly bitch about Sessions' recusal? 

 
 
Tacos!
4.2.23  Tacos!  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.2.20    2 weeks ago

It has nothing to do with what I like. It's just the most logical interpretation of the evidence. The Left has been thrashing about for two years that Trump is obstructing justice or he's going to fire this person or that person to end the investigation, but it hasn't happened. The investigation rolls merrily along and the White House has cooperated fully with it. The fact that Trump complains about the investigation doesn't change those facts.

 
 
r.t..b...
4.2.24  r.t..b...  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.19    2 weeks ago
But Trump doesn't need to fire him because he's confident he didn't do anything wrong.

Hopefully that will be the thing that keeps the investigation going until completion. If not, the uproar will pale in comparison to the screeching heard to this point.  Expect something to follow shortly as the midterms have been completed and the release cannot be construed as influencing any votes. It is time, and it is going to be ugly.

 
 
Tacos!
4.2.25  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @4.2.22    one week ago
If Trump is so fucking 'confident he didn't do anything wrong', WHY does he constantly bitch

Most people who are being investigated for something they didn't do, bitch about it - particularly if you are someone who (like Trump) doesn't trust the entrenched people in the system to treat him fairly.

He did trust Sessions to see he was treated fairly, but then Sessions removed himself from the equation and Trump found himself at the mercy of the career people. His fears have been somewhat vindicated with the evidence we have seen of FBI agents with a clear anti-Trump agenda.

 
 
Dulay
4.2.26  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.23    one week ago
It's just the most logical interpretation of the evidence.

Unless you recognize the FACT that he just fired THE MOST sycophantic member of his cabinet. ANY review of Sessions' actions as AG must recognize that he did everything in his power to further Trump's agenda. The ONLY reason he has articulated to date is that he is 'not happy' that he rightly recused himself from the Russian investigation. 

The Left has been thrashing about for two years that Trump is obstructing justice or he's going to fire this person or that person to end the investigation, but it hasn't happened.

Yates, Comey and McCabe come to mind. 

The investigation rolls merrily along and the White House has cooperated fully with it. The fact that Trump complains about the investigation doesn't change those facts.

Actually, Trump has refused to answer questions about obstruction and he had many of his aids claim Executive privilege even for events that occurred prior to his inauguration. 

 
 
Dulay
4.2.27  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.25    one week ago
Most people who are being investigated for something they didn't do, bitch about it - particularly if you are someone who (like Trump) doesn't trust the entrenched people in the system to treat him fairly.

Why the strawman Tacos!? My comment was CLEARLY about Trump's bitching about Sessions, NOT the investigation. BAD FORM. 

He did trust Sessions to see he was treated fairly, but then Sessions removed himself from the equation and Trump found himself at the mercy of the career people.

Therein lies the rub Tacos!. It isn't the AG's JOB to see that Trump 'was treated fairly'. That is Trump's MISTAKE and something that he seems unwilling to LEARN. 

His fears have been somewhat vindicated with the evidence we have seen of FBI agents with a clear anti-Trump agenda.

Total Bullshit. 

 
 
sandy-2021492
4.2.28  sandy-2021492  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.23    one week ago

Yes, his charity was shut down for fraud.  His university was a fraud.  He has a history of stuffing contractors and using illegal immigrants for labor (those same illegals he vilifies now).  All that points to him being completely honest about his reasons for not wanting to get investigated.

Really, Tacos, I was born at night, but not last night 

 
 
JohnRussell
4.2.29  JohnRussell  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.2.28    one week ago

It is a never ending amazement that there are still gentle souls around who believe Donald Trump  is simply a misunderstood really honest and nice guy. 

 
 
sandy-2021492
4.2.30  sandy-2021492  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.29    one week ago

Gently souls, willfully blind souls.  Same difference, I reckon ;)

 
 
Tacos!
4.2.31  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @4.2.26    one week ago
Yates, Comey and McCabe come to mind.

What comes to an imaginative mind isn't very informative. Simple question: is the investigation still ongoing? Simple answer: Yes! Ergo, your whining and complaining is to no purpose. You're seeking justice for a problem that doesn't exist.

 
 
Tacos!
4.2.32  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @4.2.27    one week ago
It isn't the AG's JOB to see that Trump 'was treated fairly'.

I would say it's his job to see that everyone being investigated by his department is treated fairly, particularly when politics might be driving the accusations.

 
 
tomwcraig
4.2.33  tomwcraig  replied to  Dulay @4.2.26    one week ago
Yates, Comey and McCabe come to mind. 

Yates was an Obama appointee and was interim, so therefore was going to be fired/forced to resign anyways.  Comey was making a mockery of the FBI's investigations since before the 2016 primaries ended, by one week coming out and clearing Hillary of any wrongdoing, then the next week coming out and reopening investigations into Hillary's conduct as Secretary of State.  He deserved firing for that alone, as he constantly displayed pure incompetence.  And, McCabe was fired because of misconduct as shown by the IG.  So, in reality, none of the firings were purely political or purely obstructionist.  All of them had reasons outside of the Russia collusion investigation.

 
 
Tacos!
4.2.34  Tacos!  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.2.28    one week ago

And you don't think that our systems of criminal or civil justice have been able to respond to any of that? You're talking about stuff that happened before he was president and if anyone was wronged, they had the opportunity to respond appropriately. None of that is evidence of anything having to do with Russia or the election. You can't just assume a person did Thing A because he did unrelated Thing B once upon a time.

 
 
CB
4.2.35  CB  replied to  JBB @4.2.3    one week ago

Democrats would need, "just the facts" no filler. Trump is a dangerous "mouth" if you give him the space to use it. Be extremely smart and well-disciplined, democrats!

 
 
Dulay
4.2.36  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.31    one week ago
What comes to an imaginative mind isn't very informative.

I didn't imagine that Trump and or Sessions fired all those people in part because he wanted the investigation to end and that you said it 'hasn't happened'. 

Simple question: is the investigation still ongoing? Simple answer: Yes! Ergo, your whining and complaining is to no purpose.

What is it with y'all characterizing simple comments as 'whining and complaining'? 

BTW, citing facts that could evidence obstruction by Trump does have a purpose. 

You're seeking justice for a problem that doesn't exist.

I thought that you wanted to talk about the 'logical interpretation of the evidence'.

 
 
Dulay
4.2.37  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.32    one week ago

Obtuse. 

 
 
Dulay
4.2.38  Dulay  replied to  tomwcraig @4.2.33    one week ago
Yates was an Obama appointee and was interim, so therefore was going to be fired/forced to resign anyways.

Irrelevant. 

Comey was making a mockery of the FBI's investigations since before the 2016 primaries ended, by one week coming out and clearing Hillary of any wrongdoing, then the next week coming out and reopening investigations into Hillary's conduct as Secretary of State. He deserved firing for that alone, as he constantly displayed pure incompetence.

Yet Trump gave his reason for firing Comey and all that BS wasn't it. 

And, McCabe was fired because of misconduct as shown by the IG.

Right.../s

So, in reality, none of the firings were purely political or purely obstructionist. All of them had reasons outside of the Russia collusion investigation.

That's like being a little bit pregnant tom...

 
 
sandy-2021492
4.2.39  sandy-2021492  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.34    one week ago
And you don't think that our systems of criminal or civil justice have been able to respond to any of that?

Not really.  He was sued over the university.  But nothing has been done about his fraudulent charity except to shut it down once it was clear that it was fraudulent.

He fired Comey, after trying to get Comey to "let it go" regarding Michael Flynn, and admitted he knew that Flynn had lied to the FBI.  He admitted to Lester Holt that he fired Comey over the Russia investigation, then lied about the interview.  He wanted to fire Mueller, but McGahn talked him off the ledge.

He violated campaign finance law paying off Stormy Daniels.

He's likely in violation of the emoluments clause.

How many times does he have to break the law or obstruct justice and even publicly admit to it before you'll admit that there most likely is a "there" there?

 
 
tomwcraig
4.2.40  tomwcraig  replied to  Dulay @4.2.38    one week ago

So, has Trump fired Mueller or Rod Rosenstein? If he was trying to be obstructionist, he would have outright fired both of them already.  Just because Democrats are beating the obstructionist drum while crying “Resist!” does not mean that Trump is obstructing anything.

 
 
Tacos!
4.2.41  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @4.2.36    one week ago
Trump and or Sessions fired all those people in part because he wanted the investigation to end

And the fact that the investigation rolls along full steam ahead doesn't bother you in your analysis. It doesn't strike you as odd that the people with absolute power to end the investigation apparently can't stop it no matter how hard they try. Amazing.

it 'hasn't happened'

I would say it hasn't happened that the investigation has ended. Not even close. You should think long about that.

 
 
Texan1211
4.2.42  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.41    one week ago

Some Democrats have a hard time with reality.

Trump wanted a Muslim ban, they claim, and banned all Muslims. They can't prove it of course, but that is the mantra. Why a Muslim ban wouldn't include about 93% of the world's Muslims doesn't matter to them.

And now Trump has fired people to end the investigation which is still ongoing.

Pretty weird!

 
 
Dulay
4.2.43  Dulay  replied to  tomwcraig @4.2.40    one week ago
So, has Trump fired Mueller or Rod Rosenstein?

Give it time. 

BTFW, if he DOES, will THAT be enough for his sycophants to start to evaluate their devotion? 

If he was trying to be obstructionist, he would have outright fired both of them already.

You forget that it's been reliably reported that Trump already ordered Mueller fired. His WH lawyer threatened to resign if he did. EVERY ONE of Trump's personal lawyers and most of the GOP Congress have 'counseled' Trump NOT to fire Sessions, Rosenstein and Mueller. 

 Just because Democrats are beating the obstructionist drum while crying “Resist!” does not mean that Trump is obstructing anything.

All one needs do is LISTEN to what Trump himself said and see what Trump himself has done.

Democrats have NO responsibility for the FACT that Trump is under investigation federally and in multiple states. 

 
 
Tacos!
4.2.44  Tacos!  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.2.39    one week ago
He was sued over the university

Yeah! How bout that! You can sue people in this country.

He fired Comey

Yeah, he's allowed to do that and he doesn't need a good reason either.

trying to get Comey to "let it go"

He suggested it because he was being merciful. He didn't order it and he didn't interfere.

he fired Comey over the Russia investigation

One of multiple reasons. Again, he doesn't need a reason.

He violated campaign finance law paying off Stormy Daniels.

No way. He is allowed to do whatever he likes with his own money, even spending it on his own campaign with no limit. He is also allowed to enter into non-disclosure agreements with people. At worst, if anyone violated campaign finance law, it would be his attorney. There is no interpretation of the law that would implicate Trump.

He's likely in violation of the emoluments clause.

No, he's likely not. Very likely not.

 
 
Dulay
4.2.45  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.41    one week ago
Trump and or Sessions fired all those people in part because he wanted the investigation to end

Nice edit there Tacos!. /s

And the fact that the investigation rolls along full steam ahead doesn't bother you in your analysis.

That it 'rolls along' despite the fact that Trump's one true desire is to stop it merely proves to me that OUR SYSTEM WORKS. We will never know how many times Trump has been told 'No you may not'. I just wish I had the drywall contract @ the WH. 

It doesn't strike you as odd that the people with absolute power to end the investigation apparently can't stop it no matter how hard they try. Amazing.

What's amazing is that you don't want to acknowledge that Trump CAN NOT FIRE Mueller WITHOUT CAUSE. So your statement about 'absolute power' is total BULLSHIT. 

I would say it hasn't happened that the investigation has ended. Not even close. You should think long about that.

As should you. It illustrates another level of Trump's incompetence.  

 
 
A. Macarthur
4.2.46  A. Macarthur  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.44    one week ago
He fired Comey

Yeah, he's allowed to do that and he doesn't need a good reason either.

He cannot do it for the purpose of obstructing justice.

trying to get Comey to "let it go"

He suggested it because he was being merciful. He didn't order it and he didn't interfere.

Also obstruction.

he fired Comey over the Russia investigation

One of multiple reasons. Again, he doesn't need a reason.

YOU COULD NOT BE MORE ILL-INFORMED.

 
 
KDMichigan
4.2.47  KDMichigan  replied to  Dulay @4.2.26    one week ago
Yates,

You referring to the liberal snowflake that refused to do her Job?

McCabe

Really? McCabe? His ass was so far up the Clintons asses I wouldn't doubt if he made a hit for them personally.

Comey

Where do you go from here ? The left hated him now they love him? He did say that Hillaryious Hillary was incompetent or just plain stupid with her secured mail.

and he had many of his aids claim Executive privilege

Um that is granted. So what aids claimed Executive privilege? Who did he grant it too?

 
 
sandy-2021492
4.2.48  sandy-2021492  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.44    one week ago

Spin away, there, Tacos!  The desperation isn't obvious or anything.

 
 
Tacos!
4.2.49  Tacos!  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.2.48    one week ago
Spin away, there, Tacos!  The desperation isn't obvious or anything.

Nothing to spin. Leftists' stock in trade for years has been blowing ordinary things out of proportion or just inventing crises out of whole cloth so they can whip people into such a frothing, fear-infused frenzy that their only recourse for survival is to allow the Democratic Party to save them. AKA submit and be ruled. I'm just another cool headed person who can see the Democrat emperor (i.e. propaganda machine) has no clothes.

 
 
Trout Giggles
4.2.50  seeder  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.49    one week ago

That there is funny I don't care who you are

(referring to your entire comment)

 
 
sandy-2021492
4.2.51  sandy-2021492  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.49    one week ago

Leftists?  Are they the ones who went in whole-hog on prosecuting a POTUS for getting a bj?

 
 
Dulay
4.2.52  Dulay  replied to  KDMichigan @4.2.47    one week ago
Um that is granted.

Actually, no. 

So what aids claimed Executive privilege?

Bannon and Hicks. 

Add them to Sessions, Rogers and Coats. 

Who did he grant it too?

Actually NO ONE, which is the POINT. 

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.2.53  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.1    one week ago
I think you'd need a really good reason. We haven't heard one yet.

The only explicable reason is that Scumbag's guilty and he's desperate.  He apparently believes his only way out of this is to exceed his power and try to put a stake in the heart of the investigation by fiat. 

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4.2.54  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.2.51    one week ago
Are they the ones who went in whole-hog on prosecuting a POTUS for getting a bj?

That's exactly what popped into my mind when I read his comment stating the left was "blowing ordinary things out of proportion ". They lost their mind when a President got a consensual BJ in the oval office, but sit back with indifference as a President obstructs justice, lies dozens of times a day, doesn't accept the conclusions of our intelligence community who unanimously found the Russia at fault for election meddling in 2016, paid several porn stars for their silence during his campaign in an effort to effect the election, and has now installed a loyalist lackey into position in the justice department to undermine the Mueller investigation that has already resulted in dozens of convictions, guilty pleas and indictments. The hypocrisy of some conservative Republicans knows no bounds.

 
 
Krishna
4.3  Krishna  replied to  lady in black @4    2 weeks ago

Won't stop the Mueller investigation.....

But that is what Trump is hoping to do. Sessions was an Atty Gen'l who recused himself from the Mueller investigation so he couldn't do anything about it.

But now what?- since the position is now vacant?

Trump will appoints someone else-- and before appointing him he'll make sure they promise not to recuse themsvesf. (So then the AG can do Trump's bidding). 

 
 
Dean Moriarty
5  Dean Moriarty    2 weeks ago

Never liked him myself. Good move by Trump.

 
 
Tacos!
6  Tacos!    2 weeks ago

We don't know what it was like to work under him, but publicly, he seemed completely lacking in leadership skills.

 
 
CB
7  CB    2 weeks ago

Stayed tuned: The other shoe is flying up in the air somewhere. . . .

 
 
JohnRussell
8  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago

Donald Trump is a career criminal. You ever see the movie "Open Range"? In the movie there is a character who owns most of the small western town. He is corrupt as the day is long and acts like he is king as far as the eye can see. 

In the movie this baron also owns the law. He controls the local sheriff's office and the sheriff does the town bosses bidding 100% of the time. 

In the end the good guys (Kevin Costner and Robert Duvall) get rid of the bought sheriff and the corrupt town owner and the town is happy again. 

Trump is the bad town boss and he now owns the law enforcement arm that might otherwise have to arrest him. 

Time for the good guys to show up. 

 
 
Tacos!
8.1  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @8    2 weeks ago
You ever see the movie . . . Trump is the bad town boss

I don't want to upset you or trigger you, but we're not living in a movie.

 
 
JBB
8.1.1  JBB  replied to  Tacos! @8.1    2 weeks ago

The Apprentice is not a movie. It is a cheap dang olde TV show...

 
 
PJ
9  PJ    2 weeks ago

Not surprising at all.  Now I'm even more interested in what Mr. Mueller may have found.....

 
 
Trout Giggles
9.1  seeder  Trout Giggles  replied to  PJ @9    2 weeks ago

I think we shall learn fairly soon what Mueller has

 
 
KDMichigan
9.1.1  KDMichigan  replied to  Trout Giggles @9.1    2 weeks ago
I think we shall learn fairly soon what Mueller has

Don't hold your breath.

What has he found in regards to Russian collusion so far? 

I wonder if this will be the democrats next "Blue Wave" and turn out to be the same, a piddle of piss.

 
 
Raven Wing
9.1.2  Raven Wing  replied to  KDMichigan @9.1.1    2 weeks ago
turn out to be the same, a piddle of piss.

Yeah.....but, that 'piddle of piss' just took control of the House. And the next 'piddle of piss' could take over not only the Senate, but, the Oval office as well. 

I'll take a 'piddle of piss' over a pile of sh*t any day.

 
 
PJ
9.1.3  PJ  replied to  Trout Giggles @9.1    2 weeks ago

Let's hope that is the case.  I'm sure Mr. Mueller was smart enough to know, depending on the election outcome, what the WH's next steps would be.  Whether there is something there or not I'd like to know.  

 
 
Trout Giggles
9.1.4  seeder  Trout Giggles  replied to  PJ @9.1.3    2 weeks ago

I think Mr Mueller deliberately held off on releasing his report until after the mid-terms because he didn't want to influence the elections. This is only my opinion, but if that is the case it shows that he truly is non-partisan

 
 
Trout Giggles
9.1.5  seeder  Trout Giggles  replied to  Raven Wing @9.1.2    2 weeks ago

<snicker>

 
 
KDMichigan
9.1.6  KDMichigan  replied to  Raven Wing @9.1.2    2 weeks ago
just took control of the House.

As was to be expected by most. It was the Democrats talking about a blue wave running up to the day of the election. They actually lost seats in the senate.

I'll save my opinions of who wins the Oval office come 2020 until I see who is running. If Democrats have the audacity to run that pile of sh*t Hillary again I'll bet on Trump.

And you have no choice but to take a piddle of piss because that's all Democrats had.

 
 
CB
9.1.7  CB  replied to  Trout Giggles @9.1.4    2 weeks ago

What I am wanting to discover is will Trump supporters consider this AG Jeff Session course of action "Well-played" or "We've been played." Now that the metaphor of "shooting someone on fifth avenue" has just been done by the misfit who spoke the words, Trump fans of NTs, what say you?

  1. Well-played.
  2. We've been played.

Rudy Giuliani is waiting just off-stage. Heads up!

 
 
Raven Wing
9.1.8  Raven Wing  replied to  KDMichigan @9.1.6    2 weeks ago
And you have no choice but to take a piddle of piss because that's all Democrats had.

And the you have no choice but to take the pile of turds because that is all you have. And the biggest pile sits in the Oval office, like a Cobra coiled and waiting to be played by his 'advisers' and his base, and unwilling to listen to those who really know how a President of our country should act. Not like some pompous, pampered, power hungry despot.

So yes, I'm happy to take the 'piddle of piss'. At least when it gets flushed it won't stand a chance to stop up the works on its way down and stink up and dirty everything around it.

 
 
KDMichigan
9.1.9  KDMichigan  replied to  Raven Wing @9.1.8    2 weeks ago
And the you have no choice but to take the pile of turds because that is all you have.

You don't have a clue what I have. 

If you are horribly failing at trying to refer to Trump guess what, for all your feelings he is still your President to whether you like it or not.

So buckle up and grab that box of tissues.

 

 
 
bugsy
9.1.10  bugsy  replied to  Raven Wing @9.1.2    2 weeks ago
just took control of the House.

That's true, but compared to the last 3 Presidents, the seats lost (23) were far less than Clinton (50) and Obama (63). There were also gains in the Senate, something that has not happened since Nixon.

Trump actually did very well

 
 
MUVA
9.1.11  MUVA  replied to  KDMichigan @9.1.9    2 weeks ago

100 percent correct and the map for 2020 looks good for the republicans the democrats have more seats and a lot are in battle ground and red states.The republicans could also end up with 60 senate seats happy day's are here again. 

 
 
Raven Wing
9.1.12  Raven Wing  replied to  bugsy @9.1.10    2 weeks ago

I find it pathetic that die hard Trump supporters can try to find a reason to celebrate when they just lost control of one of the more important sections of Congress by comparing their losses to those of other Presidents, which don't matter one whit in this election.

Losing the House is no small loss, yet, the Republicans are trying to soothe their loss by playing like it was no big deal. Good luck with that. 

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
Raven Wing
9.1.13  Raven Wing  replied to  KDMichigan @9.1.9    2 weeks ago
You don't have a clue what I have. 

Nor do YOU have a clue what I have. But, you sure do like to think you know all about me and toss your snark at me left and right.

The fact is, I am NOT a Democrat. [deleted]

Now....run along and play with your GOP buddies who are trying to find a way to feel good about losing the House to the Democrats. 

 
 
Texan1211
9.1.14  Texan1211  replied to  bugsy @9.1.10    2 weeks ago

The Blue Wave was a trickle.

Dems taking the House was expected. What was NOT expected was Republicans gaining seats in the Senate.

 
 
JBB
9.1.15  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.14    2 weeks ago

No, we all knew it was near impossible for Democrats to take the Senate...

 
 
Texan1211
9.1.16  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @9.1.15    2 weeks ago

Many of the Democrat posters on here seemed to think so. Why, the Senate should have been FAR easier for Dems to take--after all they can't be gerrymandered, and I know how so many Dems claim that is why the GOP had the majority in the House.

 
 
JBB
9.1.17  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.16    2 weeks ago

Posters on NT? Some here also claimed the gop would gain seats in the house? So what? All the polls and analysts said the gop would retain the Senate and the Democrats would take the House. Spin like a top if you wish. It won't change the fact last night the gop suffered an epic defeat. Overall Democrats won millions and millions more votes than the gop did...

 
 
Texan1211
9.1.18  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @9.1.17    2 weeks ago

Epic defeat?

Surely you jest.

Democrats have lost more seats under Clinton and Obama, and the GOP has lost more seats under several Presidents. That isn't spin--that is fact. Few Presidents have had such a good midterm.This win for Democrats in the House was anything but EPIC.

LMFAO at EPIC!

SMMFH

 
 
MrFrost
9.1.19  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.16    2 weeks ago
Many of the Democrat posters on here seemed to think so.

The dems taking the senate was a long shot at best. 

 
 
MrFrost
9.1.20  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.18    2 weeks ago
Democrats have lost more seats under Clinton and Obama

Hillary was never president, and Obama isn't president anymore... Lastly? Looks like the dems are winning those seats back. Face it, your party lost the house....you can spin and dance all you like, but those are the facts. Also, trump will not be getting his retarded wall. Trump will be getting very little from here on out. He is now a lame duck empty suit. 

 
 
Krishna
9.1.21  Krishna  replied to  PJ @9.1.3    2 weeks ago

 I'm sure Mr. Mueller was smart enough to know, depending on the election outcome, what the WH's next steps would b

He's one of the smartest people in Washington today. And an extremely hard worker. Add to that he is a man of high integrity (unlike some people we know :-)

So there's little doubt in my mind he anticipated this and prepared for it.

(Apparently those in the "inner Circles" in D.C. beleive he  has his staff prepare copies of his finding to date, updates them regularly-- and send to numerous important people ....(So if sessions replacement forbid Mueller to make the findings public-- that after the fact-- they've already been released).

In addition these people seem to believe that Mueller's investigation is pretty close to complete.

Finally (and this one is just a rumour-- I have no idea if its true or not) there's talk that Mueller has already Subponed Trump to testify, and currently they are negotiating the terms of how it will be done. (I'm not sure this last one is true...it amy be or might not be)

 
 
Krishna
9.1.22  Krishna  replied to  bugsy @9.1.10    2 weeks ago

That's true, but compared to the last 3 Presidents, the seats lost (23) were far less than Clinton (50) and Obama (63). There were also gains in the Senate, something that has not happened since Nixon.

Funny you should mention that-- because the situation in Washington is looking more and more like the period before Nixon was impeached...

 
 
JBB
9.1.23  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.18    2 weeks ago

Yeah, it is all pretty darned epic. The Democrats who were down by 23 seats in the House are now up by 23. If reality ever even slightly resembled what you described then Democrats taking the US House of Representatives from the damn gop of today is epic indeed. Thus, a historic win for the Democrats and an epic throwdown whooping for the poor unpopular sinking and stinking olde gop. Spin if you wish. It won't change facts...

 
 
Krishna
9.1.24  Krishna  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.16    2 weeks ago
Why, the Senate should have been FAR easier for Dems to take-

I'm surprised you don't know why!

Here's why: unlike the House, only 1/3 of the Senate is up for election at any time. (A different thierd is up every two years). It so happened that thgis year most of ther Senators up for election were Democrats-- so many more democrats could be voted out of office thsan Republicans:

Senators up for re-election in 2018
  • DEMOCRATS (24) Tammy Baldwin (Wisconsin) Sherrod Brown (Ohio) Maria Cantwell (Washington) Benjamin Cardin (Maryland) Thomas Carper(Delaware) Robert Casey (Pennsylvania) Joe Donnelly (Indiana) Dianne Feinstein (California) Kirsten Gillibrand (New York) Martin Heinrich (New Mexico) ...
  • REPUBLICANS (9)

.So if all the Democrats lost-- they would lose 24 seats! But if all the Republicans lost-- the most they could lose would be 9!

 
 
Texan1211
9.1.25  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @9.1.23    2 weeks ago

You put way more stock in it than you should.

it is a good win for Democrats, but scarcely the Blue Wave they were hoping for.

Dems lost more under Obama and yet he still won a second term.

The bid surprise of the election was the GOP adding Senate seats.

Makes me a little curious, though. 

If Democrats had only lost seats due to Republican gerrymandering, then why wouldn't the Democrats also pick up Senate seats, since those are not subject to any sort of gerrymandering?

 
 
JBB
9.1.26  JBB  replied to  Krishna @9.1.24    2 weeks ago

True! The mix this year was unbalanced by Dems in red states,  too...

 
 
JBB
9.1.27  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.25    2 weeks ago

When Obama ran for reelection back in 2012 he was as he remains today The Most Admired Man in the USA. On the other hand, Trump is The Most Despised Man in the Whole World...

 
 
Krishna
9.1.28  Krishna  replied to  KDMichigan @9.1.1    2 weeks ago
What has he found in regards to Russian collusion so far? 

Do you think that you-- or anyone here-- actually knows what he's found? Mueller has kept all that secret!

So while we can speculate-- its just that-- speculation, not fact.

 
 
KDMichigan
9.1.29  KDMichigan  replied to  Raven Wing @9.1.13    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
PJ
9.1.30  PJ  replied to  Krishna @9.1.21    2 weeks ago

That may explain why Mr. Trump is so angry lately.  

 
 
Trout Giggles
9.1.31  seeder  Trout Giggles  replied to  Krishna @9.1.24    2 weeks ago

And....neither one of my senators was up for re-election this year. That disappointed me because I really wanted to cast a vote against Tom Cotton.

Going back to one of your earlier comments....did the Democrats control the Senate during the Nixon years? (I could look this up, but you are so good at doing my homework for me :) )

 
 
KDMichigan
9.1.32  KDMichigan  replied to  Raven Wing @9.1.13    one week ago
Now....run along and play with your GOP buddies who are trying to find a way to feel good about losing the House to the Democrats. 

Get rid of your you's and you might be able to make a point.

 
 
bbl-1
9.1.33  bbl-1  replied to  bugsy @9.1.10    one week ago

Trump did well?  Maybe, but that Russian stench still clings.

 
 
Skrekk
9.1.34  Skrekk  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.14    one week ago
The Blue Wave was a trickle.

LOL. 

 
 
Texan1211
9.1.35  Texan1211  replied to  Skrekk @9.1.34    one week ago

Gee, I must have missed something.

Did Democrats take the Senate majority? 

Did Democrats even show a net gain in Senate seats?

I realize these might be tough questions, so take your time and research it before answering, okay?

 
 
bbl-1
10  bbl-1    2 weeks ago

Sessions was out the moment he became involved with the Trump.

Trump is going down.  And many are going with him.

 
 
A. Macarthur
10.1  A. Macarthur  replied to  bbl-1 @10    one week ago

38 members of the NIXON administration served prison time in conjunction with Watergate!

On my fantasy/wish list, is a double impeachment or indictment … TRUMP and PENCE (who lied about the firing of Flynn) … leaving SPEAKER PELOSI as an INTERIM POTUS!

Poetic Justice much? "The fact of experiencing a fitting or deserved retribution for one's actions."

Jess Willard Trump's ass in Adam Schiff's/Elijah Cummings' briefcase!

Party's Over, MF'ers!

 
 
A. Macarthur
11  A. Macarthur    one week ago

In a way, I would like to see Whitaker slow or stop Mueller …

FOR NOW … because …

In January, when the House has a Democrat majority, Trump can't do shit to kill the truth from seeing the light of day! With subpoena power …

DEMOCRATS can call Mueller and his investigators for testimony, so all the facts will not just be revealed, but, the significance of what Trump and his sycophants tried to keep from Americans, might be a bigger disaster for Trump.

Further, Whitaker himself will likely be subpoenaed, and, that will yield more evidence of obstruction of justice. 

And it's a good bet that SESSIONS will be called to testify …

… WITH A BIG, FUCKIN' AXE TO GRIND after being humiliated by TRUMP!

 
 
A. Macarthur
12  A. Macarthur    one week ago

And by the way, Whitaker will very likely become a target of the Mueller investigation and be indicted as part the obstruction, and, for the related criminal conspiracy.

Trump has already been caught in his lie regarding "not knowing Whitaker."

It's going to be an interesting 2019!

 
 
CB
12.1  CB  replied to  A. Macarthur @12    one week ago

@ 5:03 in your listed video, a tangential, interesting slide appears: It reads word for word like the worldview of member LiveFreeorDie on NewsTalkers.  —You don't say.

LiveFreeorDie this is not a knock, but an affirmation of your statements to Newstalkers.

 
 
A. Macarthur
12.1.1  A. Macarthur  replied to  CB @12.1    one week ago

Read my comment 13 below about Whitaker, one more hypocrite religionist Republican.

 
 
A. Macarthur
13  A. Macarthur    one week ago

Oh! By the way …

Matt Whitaker, as now, head of the DOJ, is consequently overseer of the FBI.

Got that?

WHITAKER IS UNDER INVESTIGATION BY THE FBI FOR SCAMMING DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS OUT OF THEIR LIFE SAVINGS AS PART OF A PHONY PATENT/INVENTOR "BUSINESS" SCHEME!

Got THAT?!!!

LOCK HIM UP you holier-than-thou Trumpians!

 
 
CB
13.1  CB  replied to  A. Macarthur @13    one week ago

Poor AG Sessions, he did not realize he had a chief of staff understudy! And "the new guy" is being scrutinized for corruption, too?

 
 
Trout Giggles
13.2  seeder  Trout Giggles  replied to  A. Macarthur @13    6 days ago
SCAMMING DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS OUT OF THEIR LIFE SAVINGS

Good Christian fellow he is........

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

ArkansasHermit-too
Galen Marvin Ross
arkpdx
TTGA


58 visitors