Trump, lamenting Jeff Sessions' Russia recusal, says he has 'great respect' for Eric

Trump, lamenting Jeff Sessions' Russia recusal, says he has 'great respect' for Eric Holder because he 'protected' Obama

http://static1.businessinsider.com/i...llan-smith.jpg

• Allan Smith
• 12/29/17

http://static6.businessinsider.com/i...0/rtx3z4yf.jpgDonald Trump. Jonathan Ernst/Reuters

• President Donald Trump said he had "great respect" for former Attorney General Eric Holder having "totally protected" former President Barack Obama.
• Trump made the comment to The New York Times during a Thursday interview in which he said it was "too bad" that his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, recused himself from the Russia investigation.

---

President Donald Trump told The New York Times in a Thursday interview that former Attorney General Eric Holder "totally protected" former President Barack Obama.

Trump added that he has "great respect for that," lamenting that it was "too bad" his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, recused himself earlier this year from the Justice Department's Russia investigation.

"I don't want to get into loyalty, but I will tell you that, I will say this: Holder protected President Obama. Totally protected him," Trump said, adding, "When you look at the things that they did, and Holder protected the president. And I have great respect for that, I'll be honest."

Trump for months has both publicly and privately stewed over Sessions' recusal from the Russia probe, which is now being overseen by special counsel Robert Mueller, who had to be appointed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein due to Sessions' recusal. Trump has suggested that he would have never hired Sessions for the job had he known that the former Alabama senator would later recuse himself from the investigation into Russian election meddling and the Trump campaign's possible involvement.

Holder has been on the receiving end of criticism from Trump in the past. He has been an outspoken critic of some of the president's actions in recent months.

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-has-great-respect-for-eric-holder-protected-obama-2017-12

Oh my goodness! Trump needs to learn when to keep his mouth shut. To basically say he expects Sessions to be more like Eric Holder is ridiculous. Eric Holder was nothing more than Obama's political pit bull! Attorney General Sessions has more integrity in one finger than Holder had in his whole body. This continuous crying makes President Trump look foolish in my opinion.

Special prosecutor should probe lawless Obama-era DOJ

BY PAUL H. JOSSEY - 03/14/17 07:20 AM EDT 59

http://thehill.com/sites/default/fil...?itok=vf7yJpsW
© Getty

Attorney General Jeff Sessions recently signaled a special prosecutor might soon probe the Obama-era Department of Justice. Obama appointees transformed Justice into a 19th-Century political machine that coerced, bullied, and eschewed law for the altar of partisan politics. Shedding light on the systemic abuses that marred so many Department priorities and policies would be welcome.

Both Obama AGs’ Loretta Lynch and Eric Holder put politics before law. Lynch made news for her tarmac gabfest with Bill Clinton days before the FBI finished its probe of his wife, the Democrat presidential nominee. More recently, Lynch endorsed bloody street clashes to protect American rights. That’s not how it works. The Constitution, interpreted by the Courts, has always determined our rights, even in the Civil Rights era. Power through street brawls is the stuff of left-wing romanticism.

Lynch’s activism didn’t just appear when she left office, but it pales to her predecessor. Eric Holder proudly portrayed himself as Obama’s strong man. In an “unprecedented” crackdown on leakers, he surveilled journalists and seized phone records. He directed partisan prosecutions, and famously ignored Congressional oversight.

Holder’s DOJ “leadership” earned him a Congressional contempt charge but praise from his boss. It also set the Department’s new ethos: rules don’t matter, progressive politics does.

Subordinates got the message, nowhere more than Texas. Civil Rights Division attorneys and local offices habitually acted unethically and unprofessionally while fighting the Lone Star State. One Texas federal judge was so shocked by federal lawyers’ repeated lies he ordered a blistering five-part remedy that would supervise ethics training for hundreds of Justice lawyers. He eventually withdrew much of the sanction but still called the government’s behavior “nothing short of stunning.” He further noted the 132 ethical violations DOJ has admitted just in the past four years would leave a private firm “deeply ashamed, out of business or both.”

DOJ conduct similarly appalled a different judge in a redistricting case. He stated DOJ entered the case with “arrogance and condescension.” The eye-rolling, bubble-gum chewing attorneys, he believed, viewed Texas’ arguments as unworthy and its lawyers as “a bunch of backwoods hayseed bigots who bemoan the abolition of the poll tax and pine for the days of literacy tests and lynchings.”

DOJ’s interest in Texas wasn’t random. Turning the red-state behemoth blue would ensure Democrat national political domination. When a 2013 Supreme Court case removed federal supervision of Texas’ election laws, Holder spared no taxpayer expense to get the state back under his thumb. DOJ has spent years and untold loot for this nakedly political goal.

And it’s just part of the story. DOJ also circumvented Citizens United, another Supreme Court case Democrats despised. The Tea Party scandal — a direct result of the ruling — broke at the IRS but Justice played its part. Just before the 2010 midterms, Lois Lerner gave DOJ confidential donor information from conservative nonprofits without a court order. The only purpose for this illegal transfer was potential dirt on the president’s enemies, although no one acted before the scandal broke.

Elsewhere DOJ shook down corporations to fund their nonprofit allies. Instead of the Treasury getting settlement money, DOJ asked corporate wrongdoers to “voluntarily” provide massive checks to their friends without covenants on how they spent the money. So far, this program has robbed the American taxpayer of at least $3 billion. In turn, these nonprofits support DOJ litigation and media efforts and provide fertile ground for future hires.

And the beat goes on. AGs set the activist agenda and example by flaunting the law, subordinates work the trenches in partisan litigation while belittling adversaries, officials ignore the Supreme Court, and Justice strong arms corporations to fund outside allies, then hires them.

Congressional Democrats cover the charade branding any oversight as witch-hunts or racism. Political appointees wait out the Republican administration by “burrowing” into the civil service, returning to the nonprofits, or just ending the pretense. It’s no coincidence the DNC chief formerly led DOJ’s Civil Rights Division.

Problems at Justice didn’t begin with Obama. Both Clinton and Bush had issues. But the Obama DOJ professionalized lawlessness to an unseen degree. The Department’s politicization under Lynch and especially Holder is dark stain on Justice’s storied history. A special prosecutor could begin to restore confidence in this important institution.


http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...-obama-era-doj

I don't know what's happened to the education level of our citizenry, but here's the deal. All of our Cabinet agencies are political organizations. Their leaders are appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and serve the Presidency and that President's Agenda. That is what elections are for. It's how we change policies, change directions, make improvements, solve problems, and serve the electorate.

DOJ is not any more "independent" than the FBI is any more "independent" than any other agency in the US government. What is the point of having a new President if he can't use the agencies to implement his new agenda, reach the new goals, secure the new results? The whole point is to change these agencies that have been screwing up our country under prior leadership. If these Cabinet leaders and all the directors of all the agencies under them are not committed to the newly elected agenda and the new President elected to execute it, what was the point of the election? There would be no frigging point to the election. The election would be a media farce and the winner nothing but an impotent figurehead. That is not our system.

If the Attorney General is not somewhat independent but instead a pawn of the President, then the AG is nothing more than a political hack.

If there are any suspect legal shenanigans inside government or outright scams on U.S. residents, folks deserve an independent AG who can investigate without political pressure. What the people don't deserve is some myopic (shortsighted) AG that is beholden to the political leanings of the president instead of the U.S. Constitution and the Federal Code.

The U.S Attorney General is the country's top law enforcement official and should act to enforce, and when necessary, litigate in support of our written laws. It is not his job to act as a shield for anyone who may be suspected of wrongdoing, but as the protector for all U.S. residents equally during the enforcement of the law. Justice is meant to be blind to prejudice, and should only consider the relevant facts in an objective and fair manner without a basis in politics.

I personally think Jeff Sessions is doing a great job using the law to push President Trump's agenda forward. However, he should not be mistaken for a political pawn like Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch were for Obama.

Yes, all Cabinet Members are political hacks, because they are political appointees. That is their purpose, to advance the agenda of the President who appointed them, a President elected by the people of the United States. If they don't do that, they need to be fired and replaced with people who will advance that agenda. It's why we have elections, it's why a new Cabinet is appointed each time we have a new President.