Trump adds a mile to the rope that's going to hang him

[Hayabusa Rider]

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/30/trump-jeff-sessions-attorney-general-trey-gowdy-611645

https://www.axios.com/trump-tweets-...2c8-a8c3-3b4db3573320.html?utm_source=sidebar

The problem with charging someone with obstruction isn't proving an action but establishing intent. Comey was iffy on his own to use on it's own but now Trump has no wiggle room at all. Rudy is worried about obstruction with good cause.

 

[K1052]

Trump has two modes: Corrupt Intent and Malicious Intent.

Sometimes the knob gets stuck between them and you get both.

 

[interchange]

Well, I agree with Gowdy in terms of Trump's rebuke of Sessions signing up for the job without disclosing the conflicts that led to his recusal (assuming that's how it really happened anyway). Of course, Trump has gone much further than that so Gowdy's impression falls short. Even if Trump stayed within the bounds, it really isn't good practice to spout off about it so often and so publicly. Of course -- Trump has proven that the usual rules don't apply to him. Perhaps his strategy is to make the rope a mile long so that no one can find a place to hang him from where his feet can't touch the bottom.

 

[dank69]

I think it is great that he can just flat out admit this stuff and the GOP will do nothing.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well, I agree with Gowdy in terms of Trump's rebuke of Sessions signing up for the job without disclosing the conflicts that led to his recusal (assuming that's how it really happened anyway). Of course, Trump has gone much further than that so Gowdy's impression falls short. Even if Trump stayed within the bounds, it really isn't good practice to spout off about it so often and so publicly. Of course -- Trump has proven that the usual rules don't apply to him. Perhaps his strategy is to make the rope a mile long so that no one can find a place to hang him from where his feet can't touch the bottom.

Sessions acted properly, which is why Trump is upset. It is not the job of any AG to defend the President from criminal investigations. If anything the AG is responsible for investigating potential wrongdoing, not having "loyalty". Al Capone could be upset if one of his subordinates wouldn't break the law and didn't tell him before being hired, but that complaint would be akin to Trump and Sessions. Even then, asking Session to un-recuse himself constitutes overt obstruction by attempted improper interference. Trump's strategy? I think he's over a bottomless pit and the rope will be long enough to he reaches terminal velocity before part of him suddenly stops.

An interesting thing people had been speculating about was why Trump simply hasn't fired Sessions is now answered. It isn't out of a sense of respect for law, but that Republican Senators have been found to have a line after all. If Sessions (one of their own) was fired then there would be no one confirmed to take his place. He can fire anyone he wants, but he can't have anyone he likes either.

 

[K1052]

An interesting thing people had been speculating about was why Trump simply hasn't fired Sessions is now answered. It isn't out of a sense of respect for law, but that Republican Senators have been found to have a line after all. If Sessions (one of their own) was fired then there would be no one confirmed to take his place. He can fire anyone he wants, but he can't have anyone he likes either.

True he has a lack of good alternatives but also pissing off a bunch of R senators could have more dire consequences if he ends up getting impeached. Becoming the only US president to be impeached and convicted (then potentially face various criminal prosecutions) would be one hell of a final act.

 

[fskimospy]

Sessions acted properly, which is why Trump is upset. It is not the job of any AG to defend the President from criminal investigations. If anything the AG is responsible for investigating potential wrongdoing, not having "loyalty". Al Capone could be upset if one of his subordinates wouldn't break the law and didn't tell him before being hired, but that complaint would be akin to Trump and Sessions. Even then, asking Session to un-recuse himself constitutes overt obstruction by attempted improper interference. Trump's strategy? I think he's over a bottomless pit and the rope will be long enough to he reaches terminal velocity before part of him suddenly stops.

Yes, this is an extremely important point. Attorneys General should not be selected based on their ability to oversee a particular investigation, ESPECIALLY one that involves their boss. That's mafia style governance. If any prior president had claimed that they were selecting an AG based in any part on whether or not they would be able to oversee criminal investigations into the president's own conduct that could potentially have sparked impeachment hearings on its own. Trump's statement here is an admission of unbelievable corruption.

An interesting thing people had been speculating about was why Trump simply hasn't fired Sessions is now answered. It isn't out of a sense of respect for law, but that Republican Senators have been found to have a line after all. If Sessions (one of their own) was fired then there would be no one confirmed to take his place. He can fire anyone he wants, but he can't have anyone he likes either.

While I appreciate this I wonder if when/if shit hits the fan they would actually refuse to confirm a new AG.

 

[interchange]

Sessions acted properly, which is why Trump is upset. It is not the job of any AG to defend the President from criminal investigations. If anything the AG is responsible for investigating potential wrongdoing, not having "loyalty". Al Capone could be upset if one of his subordinates wouldn't break the law and didn't tell him before being hired, but that complaint would be akin to Trump and Sessions. Even then, asking Session to un-recuse himself constitutes overt obstruction by attempted improper interference. Trump's strategy? I think he's over a bottomless pit and the rope will be long enough to he reaches terminal velocity before part of him suddenly stops.

An interesting thing people had been speculating about was why Trump simply hasn't fired Sessions is now answered. It isn't out of a sense of respect for law, but that Republican Senators have been found to have a line after all. If Sessions (one of their own) was fired then there would be no one confirmed to take his place. He can fire anyone he wants, but he can't have anyone he likes either.

Yes it was right for him to recuse himself and that has angered Trump. I was referring to the choice to accept AG position if knowing and not disclosing that his Russian contacts would potentially disqualify him from leading oversight of the investigation. Beyond that, Trump is definitely an asshat, and a dangerous one for so publicly displaying that he expects to be able to direct this investigation in any way.

 

[Moonbeam]

I am not sure of the chronology of events here. When would Sessions have known he would have to recuse himself of a major investigation. Anyway, I find it quite comical that Trump constantly beats up on Sessions and it may be testimony by Sessions that may contribute to bringing Trump down. It's really not to smart to humiliate and berate the guy holding a dagger. Sessions may wind up in the history books as one of America's great heroes. Trustworthy loyal helpful friendly courteous kind obedient cheerful thrifty brave clean and reverent.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes it was right for him to recuse himself and that has angered Trump. I was referring to the choice to accept AG position if knowing and not disclosing that his Russian contacts would potentially disqualify him from leading oversight of the investigation. Beyond that, Trump is definitely an asshat, and a dangerous one for so publicly displaying that he expects to be able to direct this investigation in any way.

Wouldn't you agree that selecting an Attorney General on the basis of whether or not he will be able to oversee criminal investigations into yourself would be an act of unprecedented corruption? If that is an acceptable criterion for selecting the nation's top law enforcement officer then it's hard to see how any avenue remains to effectively combat criminal activity by the president. (Congress lacks the investigative resources to police say, the financial crimes it looks likely Trump is guilty of)

 

[interchange]

I am not sure of the chronology of events here. When would Sessions have known he would have to recuse himself of a major investigation.

Well that is of course a pertinent point, and I will admit limitations in my knowledge of Sessions' contacts and the legal implications of them. If his recusal was only appropriate because of his screw-up in Congressional testimony, then my point is null. But I'm under the impression that him meeting with Kislyak twice while a member of Trump's campaign team in 2016 would be a big deal whether or not he misled Congress about it.

 

[Jaskalas]

Sessions acted properly, which is why Trump is upset. It is not the job of any AG to defend the President...

It appears that many people want the DOJ treated as a fourth branch of government.
OTOH, Trump and his lemmings expect the DOJ to serve its master, Trump.

 

[interchange]

Wouldn't you agree that selecting an Attorney General on the basis of whether or not he will be able to oversee criminal investigations into yourself would be an act of unprecedented corruption? If that is an acceptable criterion for selecting the nation's top law enforcement officer then it's hard to see how any avenue remains to effectively combat criminal activity by the president. (Congress lacks the investigative resources to police say, the financial crimes it looks likely Trump is guilty of)

Well...ostensibly yes if the intent is for the President to influence the investigation. So under Trump, absolutely. But with or without Sessions Trump's corruption is quite evident.

If we look at this from the lens of him being innocent until proven guilty and the scope of the investigation being a counterintelligence probe into Russia instead of into the Trump campaign or Trump himself, then he would have every right to be angry. Let's do it differently. If Clinton were elected instead and she appointed Sessions who ended up in the same position, she would be furious. It would be politically very bad for her to have appointed an attorney general that is wrapped up with conflicts of interest (if not complicity in some way) in the most important investigation maybe ever.

So I think the platform for him being angry at Sessions on that basis exists. Sessions' contacts make Trump look bad even if he had no desire to abuse the DOJ in his favor. But his behavior has clearly marked him having that desire. Which is what I said initially. Gowdy makes a plausible argument that doesn't hold up when tested.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It appears that many people want the DOJ treated as a fourth branch of government.
OTOH, Trump and his lemmings expect the DOJ to serve its master, Trump.

The DOJ was never meant to be a fourth branch but it was never a created entity by the Executive Branch. The AG and the Office exist by Congressional legislation to serve the public, not Presidential, interests. The Executive Branch, that is the President, can give direction and hold accountable those who violate the public trust, at least that is the proper role. That does not in any way obligate the DOJ to serve the President at his whim, especially in matters involving potential criminality.

 

[Jaskalas]

The DOJ was never meant to be a fourth branch but it was never a created entity by the Executive Branch. The AG and the Office exist by Congressional legislation to serve the public, not Presidential, interests. The Executive Branch, that is the President, can give direction and hold accountable those who violate the public trust, at least that is the proper role. That does not in any way obligate the DOJ to serve the President at his whim, especially in matters involving potential criminality.

I do / did not know the specifics of its legal mandate. So it was formed by Congress and is a separate entity from the executive branch?

Trump voters would have me believe it's part of the executive branch. That it exists as nothing more than an extension of the President's will. Of course that'd belie all the fuss over the Clinton probe. But their logic never did make any sense.

 

[fskimospy]

Well...ostensibly yes if the intent is for the President to influence the investigation. So under Trump, absolutely. But with or without Sessions Trump's corruption is quite evident.

If we look at this from the lens of him being innocent until proven guilty and the scope of the investigation being a counterintelligence probe into Russia instead of into the Trump campaign or Trump himself, then he would have every right to be angry. Let's do it differently. If Clinton were elected instead and she appointed Sessions who ended up in the same position, she would be furious. It would be politically very bad for her to have appointed an attorney general that is wrapped up with conflicts of interest (if not complicity in some way) in the most important investigation maybe ever.

So I think the platform for him being angry at Sessions on that basis exists. Sessions' contacts make Trump look bad even if he had no desire to abuse the DOJ in his favor. But his behavior has clearly marked him having that desire. Which is what I said initially. Gowdy makes a plausible argument that doesn't hold up when tested.

I see what you are saying but I think the rules are different when you are the subject of the investigation regardless of whether you have corrupt intent or not. (Trump clearly has corrupt intent) If Clinton had selected an AG based on whether or not they could participate in the email server investigation that would have been similarly corrupt.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I do / did not know the specifics of its legal mandate. So it was formed by Congress and is a separate entity from the executive branch?

Not separate as it performs a function of law enforcement under the aegis of the Executive Branch, which is responsible for its conduct, but its purpose is not to serve the President as HIS attorney. That is why Trump could fire Sessions if his personal calculus weighs in favor of it. That does not mean freedom of consequences if happens for corrupt intent. Regardless it is wholly a creation of Congress to serve the public interest.

 

[fskimospy]

I do / did not know the specifics of its legal mandate. So it was formed by Congress and is a separate entity from the executive branch?

Trump voters would have me believe it's part of the executive branch.
That it exists as nothing more than an extension of the President's will.

The DOJ is part of the executive branch and is under the authority of the president. The thing is, the purpose of the executive branch is not to serve the president but to serve the people and the Constitution, hence why the oath of office for federal officials is to the Constitution and not the president. Perhaps more importantly they pledge to defend the Constitution from domestic enemies as well as foreign ones.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If Clinton had selected an AG based on whether or not they could participate in the email server investigation that would have been similarly corrupt.

Exactly and with any other President as it would be contrary to the public interest to have an Executive with personal police force.

 

[dank69]

I am not sure of the chronology of events here. When would Sessions have known he would have to recuse himself of a major investigation. ...

When he remembered the meetings with the Russian Ambassador that he didn't remember.

 

[Moonbeam]

The DOJ is part of the executive branch and is under the authority of the president. The thing is, the purpose of the executive branch is not to serve the president but to serve the people and the Constitution, hence why the oath of office for federal officials is to the Constitution and not the president. Perhaps more importantly they pledge to defend the Constitution from domestic enemies as well as foreign ones.

That lets Trump off. He's not even house broken although his house is broken.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That lets Trump off. He's not even house broken although his house is broken.

He's a little old to claim to be a young puppy and certainly much too bad a character to claim canine status.

 

[Moonbeam]

When he remembered the meetings with the Russian Ambassador that he didn't remember.

I have bad memory too. Didn't he get some help remembering that? Wouldn't remembering earlier have potentially prevented his confirmation?

 

[interchange]

I see what you are saying but I think the rules are different when you are the subject of the investigation regardless of whether you have corrupt intent or not. (Trump clearly has corrupt intent) If Clinton had selected an AG based on whether or not they could participate in the email server investigation that would have been similarly corrupt.

It's quite a crisis, really. Almost everyone trying to fend off an investigation isn't going to do what Trump does.

 

[UNCjigga]

Food for thought—imagine, if you will, an alternate Trumpverse where Giuliani was named AG instead of Sessions. Do you think, under this scenario, that Trump would be better protected by his AG, or is it more likely that Giuliani would have leaked or blabbed enough to already have Trump impeached by now? We may never know.