Top GOP Senators Back POTUS – Clear Path For Trump to Fire AG Sessions After 2018 Mid

Top GOP Senators Back POTUS – Clear Path For Trump to Fire AG Sessions After 2018 Midterm Elections


August 23, 2018


https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-...pg-600x402.jpgSenator Chuck Grassley (R-IA)


Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) both backed President Trump on Thursday and said he deserves an Attorney General he has faith in.

The top key GOP Senators said they will both back President Trump if he fires AG Sessions after the 2018 midterm elections.


Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) said in an interview with Bloomberg Thursday that he will make time for hearings to confirm a new Attorney General. This is a 180 degree turn from Grassley’s previous statements wherein he had made it clear he wouldn’t confirm a new AG if Trump were to fire Sessions.
Senator Graham told reporters on Thursday President Trump deserves an Attorney General he has faith in, reported Bloomberg.

“The president’s entitled to an attorney general he has faith in, somebody that’s qualified for the job, and I think there will come a time, sooner rather than later, where it will be time to have a new face and a fresh voice at the Department of Justice. Clearly, Attorney General Sessions doesn’t have the confidence of the president.”

The tension between President Trump and AWOL AG Sessions reached a fever pitch on Thursday.


AWOL AG Sessions unloaded on President Trump Thursday afternoon in a rare statement in response to the President’s interview with FOX & Friends host Ainsley Earhardt.


President Trump blasted AWOL Jeff Sessions during an interview with Ainsley Earhardt on FOX and Friends which aired on Thursday Morning.

President Trump: I put in an Attorney General who never took control of the Justice Department. And it’s sort of an incredible thing. We have this country going so well… I wanted to stay un-involved. Jeff Sessions recused himself and should have told me. What kind of man is this? He knows there was no collusion.

President Donald Trump went off on a tirade earlier this month against AWOL Attorney General Jeff Sessions.


Just a few days ago, President Trump took another shot at AWOL Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a total disgrace and coward who refuses to do his job and refuses to resign.


Jeff Sessions recused himself the first day on the job citing the wrong law. He has been in the corner of the Justice Department cowering while his Deputy, Rod Rosenstein calls the shots.


Sessions recusal is the reason why Robert Mueller and 17 angry Obama-Hillary donors are hunting down everyone in President Trump’s inner circle.


It is impossible for President Trump to drain the swamp without an Attorney General. Sessions has to go.



https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...erm-elections/

This is disappointing because Sessions gave up his seat in Alabama.

You 2 sit down and talk it out.

Lindsey Graham and Chuck Grassley Adjust Positions To Support President Trump Firing Jeff Sessions….


August 23, 2018 by sundance


Earlier today Senator Lindsey Graham provided a pathway for President Trump to fire Attorney General Jeff Sessions after the mid-term election. To further bolster this likelihood, Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley affirmed he could now make room for a replacement confirmation in the lame-duck congressional session between the November election and January 2019.

https://youtu.be/4Rzjxhqg53I


The statement by Senator Graham is a considerable reversal given his prior admonishment that firing AG Sessions would result in “hell to pay”; and further underlines an increasingly visible acceptance by high-profile republicans that Attorney General Jeff Sessions has been an abysmal failure.



.
The Attorney General has been strong and effective on border security and immigration issues, mostly due to effective support for Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS). However, on the needed institutional reform Sessions has been frustratingly inept. Many who understand Main Justice politics openly say AG Jeff Sessions is actually scared of the apparatus under his authority.



Against the abject failure of the DOJ to accept oversight and commit to reform amid the obvious chaos from a highly politicized previous administration, in May of this year House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes threatened to hold Attorney General Sessions in contempt of congress.




https://theconservativetreehouse.fil...ns-3.jpg?w=640


In an interesting set of tweets two weeks ago, President Trump highlighted the lack of DOJ leadership (specifically AG Jeff Sessions) in addressing institutional corruption within the DOJ which led to “spygate” and a fraudulent application for an unlawful FISA application used to conduct surveillance upon U.S. Person Carter Page.


https://theconservativetreehouse.fil...pg?w=640&h=341

In the second set of tweets that day, President Trump noted how officials within the FBI are continuing to obstruct oversight and refuse to turn over evidence of institutional corruption. In a pointed question President Trump asks: “What are they hiding”?


https://theconservativetreehouse.fil...pg?w=640&h=334

The overall message delivered by President Trump highlights the ongoing institutional issues which are not being addressed by either AG Jeff Sessions and FBI Director Christopher Wray. Both Law and Order officials are acting as corruption monitors, and neither are confronting it.


And within this dynamic we accept events as they appear:


•After the IG report on the Clinton investigation, Director Wray took no action to address the issues of the deeply political FBI; and no-one within the organization has been held accountable. With the single exception of McCabe, all former corrupt officials have been permitted to exit with full benefits and pensions intact.


•Additionally, there is no effort on behalf of the DOJ to follow-up on the IG criminal referral to charge former Asst. FBI Director Andrew McCabe for lying to the FBI, leaking information to the media and using his office/position to influence an official investigation.


•Worse yet, there is an ongoing and highly visible DOJ leadership effort to cover-up the gross criminal behavior of the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee Security staff, James Wolfe. Despite overwhelming evidence that James Wolfe leaked top secret and highly classified intelligence to the media, the DOJ has only charged Wolfe with one much lesser crime of lying to the FBI.
Initially, through 2017, we were optimistic that Attorney General Jeff Sessions and FBI Director Christopher Wray would take action to: (A) reveal the scale and scope of the prior unlawful DOJ/FBI activity; and (B) bring criminal charges against those officers who engaged in a conspiracy to influence the 2016 election and overthrow a duly elected President. However, in the face of overwhelming evidence highlighting the Sessions/Wray emphasis, we can clearly see from their decision-making their primary goal is preservation of the institutions regardless of downstream consequences.


If he is not afraid, at the very least Attorney General Jeff Sessions has continued down a path of willful blindness.


After the IG report outlining seriously corrupt and unethical behavior within the FBI, it was painfully obvious FBI Director Christopher Wray was going to twist himself into contortions to avoid even accepting the scale of corruption outlined within the report.


https://youtu.be/Red3LBQc73k

.
https://theconservativetreehouse.fil...-fbi.jpg?w=640(Link to IG Report)

That is just a small snippet of the IG report, and none of this has been addressed.


In the aggregate, Jeff Sessions, Rod Rosenstein, Christopher Wray and David Bowditch appear to be working against the interests of reform in their efforts to protect the Washington DC institutions sunlight. All four officials are allowing current career staff and former officials within the DOJ/FBI to continue conspiring to protect their former colleagues.


It has become increasingly obvious that if the MAGA community, the electorate writ large, can all pull together and win/hold the 2018 Mid-Term election President Trump will likely fire the failing leadership of both the FBI and DOJ. Within this backdrop President Trump’s personal efforts to win and hold position in the November elections is essentially a visible display of his intent toward that objective.


It is now clear that officials connected to the DOJ and FBI, or officials within Washington DC, cannot be used in any effort to eliminate the corruption within both organizations. It will take bold outside leadership, with knowledge of the operations, to dismantle it.


How to reform?


I would propose that President Trump goes outside-the-box toward the Judicial Branch, and locates two federal judges, from outside DC, with a request to become heads of the DOJ. Perhaps two members of the SCOTUS list who could be trusted to confront the internal dynamic and remove the embed corruption. Or perhaps one Federal Judge as Attorney General, and one state AG as the deputy. Example: Judge Dianne Sykes as AG, and Pam Bondi (or similar) as Deputy.


It will take a great deal of internal DOJ reform to get rid of the Lawfare mindset.
Similarly I would propose two former Governors should be brought in to lead an institutional reform effort within the FBI. Perhaps Rick Perry as FBI Director, and/or Bobby Jindal as Deputy (or similar). Two people who know the structure of investigative need, with prior institutional knowledge, who can push the importance of domestic security into the FBI field office ranks and re-prioritize the objectives.


The lessons throughout 2016, 2017 and 2018 have showcased that any/all corruption reform within DC institutions, simply cannot be dealt with by any leadership entity that has a personal or professional network connected to the adverse interests of Washington DC.


https://theconservativetreehouse.fil...pg?w=640&h=640



https://theconservativetreehouse.com...jeff-sessions/

I apologize that this showed up as a duplicate. I will delete the other.

Please repost your comment Judy :) and anyone else who commented prior to deletion of the other. Thank you.

Honestly, for Jeff Sessions as Attorney General to allow this Witch Hunt against our President, his campaign, his family, his friends, his campaign workers, his supporters, his White House staff is just unbelievable. Most jurors don't understand unless the other party can catch what they present in their exhibits. They substitute pages, they delete, they insert, they manufacture false documents, they change numbers, to frame if you're a defendant and to defeat if you're a plaintiff, no different in criminal cases as it is in civil cases. You have to know every detail of every single document, and most people don't. Sessions knows that, so to allow our country and this President to be put through this for now almost 2 years, to darken this otherwise fabulous time in our country of fixing our country is so highly regrettable it is at this point disgusting.

For our dear Jeff Sessions to have made such an historic blunder that has cost so many people so much money, their careers, their reputations and now freedom is truly beyond my comprehension. At some point, SOMEONE has to step up and say ENOUGH ALREADY. There is no crime, there is no collusion, and we're not using private law firms disguised as "SPECIAL COUNSEL" to prosecute ordinary IRS, bank or campaign finance matters that are the daily responsibility of much more knowledgeable skilled and experienced handlers of these types of cases if there are any. PERIOD.

Wow. It's such a shame Sessions recused. It was just wrong, no basis for it, so many reasons to stay in the game. No crime, no collusion. If you want to defend our "democracy", appoint a special counsel and spend $40 million investigating foreign drug cartels.

We need to pass a law that prohibits any investigation of tax or bank fraud or campaign finance issues by the US Department of Justice independent of, separate from or PRIOR to a finding by the IRS. FDIC or FEC.

Here it is, GeorgiaPeach! Thank you for saving it for me!!

:)

You are welcome Judy. :)

This is probably the reason for Sen. Grassley's turn on Jeff Sessions:

Despite Sessions Opposition, Grassley Sentencing Reform Bill Clears Committee

Fate of bill, which failed to get full vote in 2015, now uncertain in full Senate


https://fb12.akamaized.net/up/2017/0...k-Grassley.jpg

Sen. Chuck Grassley / Getty Images

BY: Charles Fain Lehman
February 15, 2018 1:30 pm

Despite opposition from the Department of Justice and a number of Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans, the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act (SRCA) passed a crucial committee vote 16 to five on Thursday, with only Republicans dissenting.

The bill is the brainchild of Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) and Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D., Ill.)—the pair reintroduced the SRCA last September. It is meant to reduce the number of offenders, approximately 190,000, held in the federal prison system, which in turn holds about nine percent of all prisoners nationwide. The SRCA accomplishes this via a number of reforms to federal sentencing laws, most notably cutting mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug and violent felonies.

Mandatory minimums have been attacked by opponents as unjust and not helpful for reducing crime rates, which makes them a prime target for senators wishing to reduce the federal prison population. An analysis from the United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) found that federal drug offenders who were charged with mandatory minimums faced average sentences twice as long as those not facing mandatory minimums. Half of all offenders were charged using mandatory minimums, the same analysis found.

In addition to cutting minimums, the bill applies some, although not all, of those reforms retroactively, as well as retroactively applying the Fair Sentencing Act, which reduced the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine offenses. The bill's sentencing reform section also calls for an inventory of federal criminal offenses, a list that would likely be hundreds of thousands of items long.
The bill's sentencing reforms were among the reasons that five Republicans—Sens. Orrin Hatch (R., Utah), John Cornyn (R., Texas), Ted Cruz (R., Texas), Ben Sasse (R., Neb.), and John Kennedy (R., La.)—opposed the bill. Cruz offered an amendment, defeated six to 15 in the committee, that would have made the bill apply prospectively rather than retroactively, and exempted violent offenders from the mandatory minimum reductions.

Without his amendment, Cruz said, he believed that the bill will not make it through the Senate. Such a failure would be a repeat performance of the last time the SRCA was before that body. Although the bill made it out of committee in 2015, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) refused to allow it a floor vote, thanks in large part to pressure from then-Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.).

Sessions, now attorney general, strongly opposed the new iteration of the SRCA in a letter to Grassley, sent Wednesday. Sessions cited many of the same concerns voiced by Cruz, including the weakening of penalties for violent offenders and drug traffickers, as well as the bill's retroactivity. Notably, recent data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics showed that as of 2016, "more than 99 percent" of federal drug offenders were incarcerated for trafficking charges (as opposed to, for example, charges of possession).
"Passing this legislation to further reduce sentences for drug traffickers in the midst of the worst drug crisis in our nation's history would make it more difficult to achieve our goals and have potentially dire consequences," Sessions wrote.

Grassley, who intends to "twist Trump's arm for criminal justice reform," Axios reported earlier this week, took to Twitter to express his outrage at Sessions's letter.

"Incensed by Sessions letter An attempt to undermine Grassley/Durbin/Lee BIPARTISAN criminal justice reforms This bill deserves thoughtful consideration b4 my cmte. AGs execute laws CONGRESS WRITES THEM!," Grassley wrote in his characteristic Twitter style.

The clash between Sessions and Grassley is indicative of a larger fight over what form any criminal justice reform ought to take. President Donald Trump, in his State of the Union Address, called for prison reform, an agenda item which has long been a focus of his adviser and son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

Such reform would focus primarily on improving reentry into society with the goal of reducing recidivism: The USSC found in 2016 that almost half of all federal offenders reoffend within eight years of release. Such reforms are a part of the SRCA too, which largely incorporates Sen. Cornyn's CORRECTIONS Act.
But, while the White House might be open to that half of the SRCA, Cornyn believed the mandatory minimum reductions would be too bitter a pill for the Trump administration to swallow. In justifying his no vote, Cornyn called for a narrower bill that could actually get through Congress and to the president's pen.
"I want to participate in a process that will result in a criminal justice bill being signed into law," Cornyn said. "Call it a concession to the brevity of life."
But not all were so pessimistic. Sen. Mike Lee (R., Utah), one of the Senate’s more conservative voices, has consistently backed the SRCA, seeing it as a way to restore public confidence in the justice system.

"Law enforcement works best and the public is best protected when communities have faith in the criminal justice system and believe the sentences that system issues are fair. Today, the Senate took a huge step towards improving public faith in the criminal justice system by passing the Sentencing and Corrections Act out of the Judiciary Committee," Lee said in a statement to the Free Beacon.

https://freebeacon.com/issues/despit...ars-committee/

Graham: Trump Will ‘Very Likely’ Fire Sessions After Midterms

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DlTIDrEW...jpg&name=small

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images...bge_normal.jpgFox News
✔@FoxNews

.@LindseyGrahamSC: The president’s entitled to an attorney general he has faith in. #Outnumbered
12:46 PM - Aug 23, 2018

• 
  1,875
• 
  1,144 people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy


23 Aug 2018

Thursday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told reporters it was “likely” President Donald Trump will fire Attorney General Jeff Sessions after the midterm elections.

Graham said, “The president is entitled to an attorney general he has faith in. I think there will come a time, sooner rather than later, where it will be time to have a new face and a fresh voice at the Department of Justice.”
He added, “Replacing him before the election to me would be a non-starter, but the idea of having a new attorney general during the first term of President Trump’s administration I think is very likely.”

Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN

https://www.breitbart.com/video/2018...ource=facebook

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MW

Graham: Trump Will ‘Very Likely’ Fire Sessions After Midterms

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DlTIDrEW...jpg&name=small

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images...bge_normal.jpgFox News
✔@FoxNews

.@LindseyGrahamSC: The president’s entitled to an attorney general he has faith in. #Outnumbered
12:46 PM - Aug 23, 2018

• 
  1,875
• 
  1,144 people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy


23 Aug 2018

Thursday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told reporters it was “likely” President Donald Trump will fire Attorney General Jeff Sessions after the midterm elections.

Graham said, “The president is entitled to an attorney general he has faith in. I think there will come a time, sooner rather than later, where it will be time to have a new face and a fresh voice at the Department of Justice.”
He added, “Replacing him before the election to me would be a non-starter, but the idea of having a new attorney general during the first term of President Trump’s administration I think is very likely.”

Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN

https://www.breitbart.com/video/2018...ource=facebook

---

Of course Sen. Graham would like to see Sessions gone. Graham is an illegal alien loving amnesty supporter and hates what Sessions is doing on the immigration issue.

It's just so sad, all Sessions had to do was stand up and tell the truth, I will not recuse myself because there is no crime, there is no collusion, my office of Attorney General will defend this President, his agenda he was elected on and the will of the people of the United States who elected him to achieve it That's all he had to say.

The attorney general is not the president’s lawyer

by Erin Dunne
| August 15, 2018 08:41 AM

https://i.connatix.com/s3/connatix-u...=433&width=770

On Tuesday, President Trump tweeted his anger at U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, saying, in reference to the ongoing investigation by special counsel Robert Muller: “If we had a real Attorney General, this Witch Hunt would never have been started. Looking at the wrong people.”

This isn’t the first time that Trump has expressed his anger with Sessions, who recused himself from the investigation into the Russian interference in the 2016 election. Indeed, the president said previously that had he known that Sessions would recuse himself, he would have “put a different attorney general in.”

In an interview with the New York Times in 2017, Trump took personal issue with Sessions’ decision saying that recusing himself “was very unfair to the president.”


https://i.connatix.com/s3/connatix-u...=253&width=450


The problem with all of this is that Trump doesn’t seem to understand the role of the U.S. attorney general. The AG is not the president’s lawyer but the country’s. That means that the attorney general does not defend the president but, instead, represents the country in legal matters.

This seems to be a distinction that is lost on the president who first sought to prevent Sessions from recusing himself and, after he did, has endlessly berated Sessions for not properly showing loyalty.

To be clear, Sessions had good reason to recuse himself, and he was right to do so. He faced a flood of criticism, including concerns from Republican leadership, over his own previously undisclosed contacts with the Russian ambassador to the United States during the Trump campaign. Since then, Sessions has defended his decision, citing regulations from the Department of Justice, which is led by the attorney general, that forbid DOJ officials from investigating campaigns they worked on.

Although there is plenty to disagree with Jeff Sessions on, on this matter he is correct and President Trump would do well to remember why.

If Trump is right that his campaign did nothing wrong, then the last thing the president would want is the findings of the investigation to be tainted and thus viewed as illegitimate. Given Sessions' own involvement with the Trump campaign and his contacts with Russia, he could not credibly exonerate the president.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...sidents-lawyer

There is no legal matter, because there is no crime, there is nothing to "exonerate". The whole thing is a DOJ SCAM against an elected President and his campaign, supporters, friends, lawyer, family, associates, White House officials, and business. It's a WITCH HUNT that's framing people left and right, ruining their lives, careers, bankrupting them and for some costing them their freedom simply because they supported Donald J Trump for President.

The Sessions DOJ is the DemoQuacks New Best Friend. Don't take my word for it, ask anyone at CNN, the New York Times and the Washington Post.

It's a totally unheard of situation of growing historic importance because it's impacting national security and could impact the mid-term elections. For Jeff Sessions to make the statement that the US DOJ will not be influenced by political considerations is the absolutely dumbest thing I've ever heard. The US Attorney General is a POLITICAL APPOINTMENT, and the US DOJ is drenched and drowning in political considerations which is why they indicted Russians, why they indicted Paul Manafort, why they are investigating Michael Cohen, why they sought pleas from Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos, why it had FISA warrants on Carter Page, why it gave immunity to David Pecker and Allen Weisselberg, etc., etc., etc.

It's just mind-boggling what is going on. It's surreal, like we're in a Twilight Zone. All because Jeff Sessions either agrees with everything that is going on or because he recused and turned his back on the President, the campaign, innocent Americans and our country. It's just unbelievable what is going on and because Sessions is the Attorney General, the job he wanted, then refused to do the job, there is no one else to blame for this disgrace than him.

Judy wrote (excerpt):

Quote:

---

It's just mind-boggling what is going on. It's surreal, like we're in a Twilight Zone. All because Jeff Sessions either agrees with everything that is going on or because he recused and turned his back on the President, the campaign, innocent Americans and our country. It's just unbelievable what is going on and because Sessions is the Attorney General, the job he wanted, then refused to do the job, there is no one else to blame for this disgrace than him.

---

There is much, much more than the Russian collusion probe to Attorney General Sessions job! He is doing his job and in my opinion is doing a damn good job of it. His recusal from the probe had nothing to do with turning his back on the President, actually his recusal erased the appearance of any impropriety, which there would have been plenty had he not recused.

Even Trump's own lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, says Jeff Session did the right thing when he recused.

Jeff Sessions turned his back on more than the President, he turned his back on the American people when he recused himself from the "Russia Collusion Probe".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MW

Of course Sen. Graham would like to see Sessions gone. Graham is an illegal alien loving amnesty supporter and hates what Sessions is doing on the immigration issue.

---

I was thinking the same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

Jeff Sessions turned his back on more than the President, he turned his back on the American people when he recused himself from the "Russia Collusion Probe".

---

I honestly don't know what Jeff Sessions has to do with the "Russian Collusion Probe". His job is to stop illegal immigration, and he is doing a damn good job, better than anyone else in the history of that position. If we lose him, we're screwed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 6 Million Dollar Man

I honestly don't know what Jeff Sessions has to do with the "Russian Collusion Probe". His job is to stop illegal immigration, and he is doing a damn good job, better than anyone else in the history of that position. If we lose him, we're screwed.

---

Sessions is doing some real good on the issue of illegal immigration, but that is not his job actually. The position of Attorney General was not created to deport illegal aliens, the position of Attorney General was to defend the Executive Branch, protect the civil rights of American citizens and prosecute crimes identified by the federal agencies. The AG and DOJ were not created to conduct malicious prosecutions against politicians or citizens for election activity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

Sessions is doing some real good on the issue of illegal immigration, but that is not his job actually. The position of Attorney General was not created to deport illegal aliens, the position of Attorney General was to defend the Executive Branch, protect the civil rights of American citizens and prosecute crimes identified by the federal agencies. The AG and DOJ were not created to conduct malicious prosecutions against politicians or citizens for election activity.

---

The DOJ is not Trump's personal law firm, nor is Jeff Sessions his personal lawyer, and anyone outside of Trump's cheerleading section will pretty much tell you that Sessions recusal was the right thing to do. Heck, even Trump's own lawyer has said as much.

All the time Trump is using whining about his Attorney General pick through twitter would be better utilized twittering about border security, illegal immigration, asylum, etc.!

It's not hard to see that Trump is clearly afraid of something. That's why he's constantly lashing out at Sessions. He wanted an Eric Holder type, but instead ended up with an ethical and principled man. However, that being said, I think his fright is less about Russian collusion and more about having Mueller delving into his and his families financial dealings during the course of the investigation. He's also understandably worried for Don Jr. and Jared Kushner. It's not hard to believe that a man like Trump could have some bones in the closet. Some of them have already been revealed, but thankfully none of them to date are actual criminal acts. Let's just hope something more significant than a Stormy Daniels payoff isn't uncovered.

In my opinion, Trump is doing a lot of damage to his brand with his excessive whining. Of course I can understand how that may not bother someone riding in the engine or the first car of the Trump train, but for those of closer to the caboose, it's irritating and looks defensive in nature.

Just quit with the crybaby whining, Mr. president, and concentrate on what the American public voted you in office to do!

Trump isn't saying and has never said that the Attorney General is his "personal lawyer". That's Never-Trump and DemoQuack Speak, and wow do you have it down. The Attorney General is supposed to protect the civil rights of Americans engaged in political activity, people like Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen, Carter Page, George Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn, Roger Stone, and so many others. Political activity is a First Amendment Right of every American, more important than "religious liberty" if you ask me, because without the one you can't have the other. The DOJ is NOT supposed to put a target on the back of every American who supported or worked for Trump and conduct grand threatening inquisitions of them in some disgusting effort to defeat a candidate in an election, to blackmail him when he wins anyway, or when he doesn't fall for that one either, the "insurance policy", fabricate a case to impeach the President by coercing and squeezing supporters and people who worked in his campaign.

I realize you don't understand this, but I would have expected Jeff Sessions to understand it, and it is very disappointing that he clearly doesn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

Trump isn't saying and has never said that the Attorney General is his "personal lawyer". That's Never-Trump and DemoQuack Speak, and wow do you have it down. The Attorney General is supposed to protect the civil rights of Americans engaged in political activity, people like Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen, Carter Page, George Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn, Roger Stone, and so many others. Political activity is a First Amendment Right of every American, more important than "religious liberty" if you ask me, because without the one you can't have the other. The DOJ is NOT supposed to put a target on the back of every American who supported or worked for Trump and conduct grand threatening inquisitions of them in some disgusting effort to defeat a candidate in an election, to blackmail him when he wins anyway, or when he doesn't fall for that one either, the "insurance policy", fabricate a case to impeach the President by coercing and squeezing supporters and people who worked in his campaign.

I realize you don't understand this, but I would have expected Jeff Sessions to understand it, and it is very disappointing that he clearly doesn't.

---

Any of the folks you listed that are guilty of a federal crime should absolutely be punished in accordance with federal law. Are you actually suggesting all crimes uncovered during the course of the investigation should go unpunished if they are unrelated to Russia collusion? Wow, I see you're a real supporter of the rule of law. Sorry, Judy, it doesn't work that way.

As for any Democrat guilty of a crime, you're going under the assumption that there is no current investigation on any of them. To that I say, I'm sorry the DOJ doesn't feel it necessary to inform the public of any ongoing investigations. Investigations are not made public for a reason. Hmm, and I figured you would understand that ... Jeff Sessions does!

LOL!! The DOJ is not supposed to target any political group, Trump supporters, Hillary supporters, Republicans, Democrats, or anyone else. Political activity is PROTECTED by the First Amendment and it's the responsibility of the US Department of Justice to uphold that constitutional right, not put targets on the backs of Americans who voted for and/or worked for a candidate or President the DOJ doesn't like.

This is pretty basic stuff, MW, but I'm actually not surprised you don't get it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

LOL!! The DOJ is not supposed to target any political group, Trump supporters, Hillary supporters, Republicans, Democrats, or anyone else. Political activity is PROTECTED by the First Amendment and it's the responsibility of the US Department of Justice to uphold that constitutional right, not put targets on the backs of Americans who voted for and/or worked for a candidate or President the DOJ doesn't like.

This is pretty basic stuff, MW, but I'm actually not surprised you don't get it.

---

It's you that don't get it. Nobody is exempt from the long arm of the law ... doesn't matter if you're Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton or Tarzan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MW

Any of the folks you listed that are guilty of a federal crime should absolutely be punished in accordance with federal law. Are you actually suggesting all crimes uncovered during the course of the investigation should go unpunished if they are unrelated to Russia collusion? Wow, I see you're a real supporter of the rule of law. Sorry, Judy, it doesn't work that way.

---

So you are for unlimited investigations going on continually? I'm sure those could find something in everybody's past to prosecute for. In a trial, you are only allowed to question a witness withing a "scope". That scope is established by previous testimony. Even if the court finds evidence of another crime, it can only refer that for separate investigation.

I see a red flag in these immunity's being given out like candy. An immunity is granted if you have committed a crime or may have committed a crime. So in effect, they are letting criminals escape prosecution for the crime they committed. There may be a usefulness when there is a particular heinous crime that is a major threat to the public. But these appear to be pure government extortion. There seems to be only one objective of these, and that is to get them to implicate someone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

LOL!! The DOJ is not supposed to target any political group, Trump supporters, Hillary supporters, Republicans, Democrats, or anyone else. Political activity is PROTECTED by the First Amendment and it's the responsibility of the US Department of Justice to uphold that constitutional right, not put targets on the backs of Americans who voted for and/or worked for a candidate or President the DOJ doesn't like.

This is pretty basic stuff, MW, but I'm actually not surprised you don't get it.

---

What you are saying is that

Trump supporters
Hillary supporters
Republicans
Democrats

(that includes most everyone in the United States)

are immune from prosecution from crime because political activity is protected

So they can commit murder, theft, DUI, etc and be protected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stoptheinvaders

What you are saying is that

Trump supporters
Hillary supporters
Republicans
Democrats

(that includes most everyone in the United States)

are immune from prosecution from crime because political activity is protected

So they can commit murder, theft, DUI, etc and be protected.

---

Murder, theft, DUI are not political activities. Political activity is voting, campaigning, supporting political candidates, working for political candidates, etc. That is political activity protected by the First Amendment.

It's troubling that you and MW do not know what political activity is or that it's protected by the First Amendment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MW

It's you that don't get it. Nobody is exempt from the long arm of the law ... doesn't matter if you're Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton or Tarzan.

---

Actually everybody is exempt from the long arm of the law until a CRIME has been committed.