Jeff Sessions is in deep trouble, and here's why

[DonViejo]

By Jennifer Rubin May 11 at 1:15 PM

Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation. “During the course of the last several weeks, I have met with the relevant senior career Department officials to discuss whether I should recuse myself from any matters arising from the campaigns for president of the United States,” he said in his written recusal released on March 2. “Having concluded those meetings today, I have decided to recuse myself from any existing or future investigations of any matters related in any way to the campaigns for President of the United States.”

Any existing or future investigations. Related in any way.

Sessions consulted with the president and coordinated the firing of James Comey. Recall that Comey had testified on March 20 that he was heading the Russia investigation:

I’ve been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. That includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government, and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts. As with any counterintelligence investigation, this will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed. Because it is an open, ongoing investigation, and is classified, I cannot say more about what we are doing and whose conduct we are examining.

That is the investigation that Sessions promised to stay away from. Firing the man heading the investigation — especially if Sessions knew that the reason was not the one stated in Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein’s May 9 memo — is a matter “arising from the campaigns for President of the United States.”

Sessions may have some explanation for why he chose to participate in the firing of Comey. But the attorney general may now be in considerable legal peril.

more
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/05/11/jeff-sessions-is-in-deep-trouble-and-heres-why/?utm_term=.00b3f6be5737

[Phoenix61]

1. I don't see why he would be in legal peril

There was nothing that said he had to recuse himself. Twitler won't fire him. Our only hope is the Alabama bar pulls his license.

[Hortensis]

6. I don't know all the various laws and ethics rules that

might be brought into play. Of course.

But I'm reminded that the actual Watergate break-in was relatively small potatoes that could have been contained without real threat to the administration. It was the attempts at cover-up that resulted in the indictments over the next two years of 60 or so government officials, the imprisonment of some, and the resignation of a president to avoid prison.

Everyone seems to feel that Sessons' firing of Comey is part of a cover-up to obstruct a very important investigation into something that may be huge potatoes.

[Phoenix61]

7. But Sessions didn't fire him

He just put in his two cents worth. Morally, he's culpable but I'm not sure about legally. It would be nice though.

[Hortensis]

8. Phoenix, remember, Sessions was Comey's boss. Comey actually reported

directly to Assistant AG Rosenstein, but Sessions is Rosenstein's boss. Rosenstein did not take this huge, historic, almost unprecedented, and probably illegal step without authorization.

Rump hired Sessions with Congress's approval and could fire him (like Comey) under the right circumstances, but the Justice Department has its mandate from laws passed by Congress. The Justice Department is supposed to be independent of White House manipulation. Rosenstein would not have acted on orders directly from Rump but from Sessions.

[Phoenix61]

9. Ewww

Hadn't thought that all the way through, did I? But still, Rosenstein did not recommend Comey be fired. And as Comey wrote in his letter, the President can fire the director of the FBI for any reason or no reason at all. So, IMO, this lies squarely at Twitler's feet. It's all on him. As KO said, you don't fire the person who is investigating you. It didn't work out well for Nixon and it won't work out well for Twitler.

[Hortensis]

10. No, it didn't work out well for Nixon at all. :)

Nor for several dozen of those in his administration who ended up indicted for criminal behaviors.

Of course it was Rump who fired, the AG's office only recommended, but observers feel they have solid reason to believe, "Sessions consulted with the president and coordinated the firing of James Comey."

[Warpy]

2. Good. Send him back to Alabama post haste

where he'll live out the rest of his days as the sort of small town southern character people point to in order to scare their children into doing their homework.

[Phoenix61]

3. Yep!

And why you should listen to your parents when they tell you not to lie.

[regnaD kciN]

4. Nah...Mad King Donald will just pardon him preemptively...

Remember that one thing that brought Nixon down was his unwillingness to pardon the Watergate burglars, because it would hurt his own image. Once it became clear that pardons would not be forthcoming from the White House, those ensnared began to sing like canaries to save themselves. Is there any doubt that our Thug-in-Chief will have no such compunctions?

[LOL Lib]

5. Lol at writers and pundits who think the law applies to Turnip and crew.

Bad Jeffry! Don't do that again!