Should Jeff Sessions Resign?

[jimnyc]

I wouldn't blame Sessions at all if he were to resign. I agree with what I'm reading here. Sure, these folks serve at the pleasure of the president, and can get 86'd at any time. But you still don't bad mouth them.

I understood a little bit way back when, when he was pissed about how it was all coming out, knowing much of it was wrong aka lies. It blindsided him and he wasn't pleased with Sessions comments and recusal.

But hell, DROP IT. You don't continue with any beef or animosity you may have about it and talk to the press about it. You take that to the man himself if that's something still nagging at you.

This was quite a SHIT MOVE by Trump where I have no flipping idea what he's thinking, unless that's his goal to get him to resign. But with some positions you want loyalty. Hell, it was shown that he spoke with members and wanted that very loyalty. But you sure as F won't get it by doing this kind of crap. This definitely gets the shithead of the month award.

---

Should Jeff Sessions Resign?

In an interview with the New York Times, President Trump sharply criticized Attorney General Jeff Sessions, ripping his decision to recuse himself in the Russia matter. Trump stated that he'd never have selected Sessions for the job if he'd known the Alabaman would make the decision to step back from overseeing Russia-related investigations. Sessions made that call back in March after it was revealed that he'd offered questionable-to-inaccurate testimony during his confirmation process regarding contact with Russian officials over the course of the presidential campaign. After consulting with career attorneys and reviewing recusal protocols, the new Attorney General concluded that he was sufficiently compromised on the Russia issue as to remove himself from the decision-making process on questions related to it. Trump evidently remains quite displeased about this development:

TRUMP: Look, Sessions gets the job. Right after he gets the job, he recuses himself.
BAKER: Was that a mistake?
TRUMP: Well, Sessions should have never recused himself, and if he was going to recuse himself, he should have told me before he took the job, and I would have picked somebody else.
HABERMAN: He gave you no heads up at all, in any sense?
TRUMP: Zero. So Jeff Sessions takes the job, gets into the job, recuses himself. I then have — which, frankly, I think is very unfair to the president. How do you take a job and then recuse yourself? If he would have recused himself before the job, I would have said, “Thanks, Jeff, but I can’t, you know, I’m not going to take you.” It’s extremely unfair, and that’s a mild word, to the president. So he recuses himself. I then end up with a second man, who’s a deputy.

Writing at at the Lawfare blog, Benjamin Wittes runs down the sprawling list of federal law enforcement officials attacked by Trump in the Times interview, including several whom he personally elevated to their current roles. Wittes suggests that if Sessions had an ounce of self respect, he'd resign his post posthaste:

It is wildly improper for the President to talk about the attorney general in this fashion. The attorney general serves at his pleasure. If he is dissatisfied with Sessions’s performance, Trump can remove him. Unlike the FBI director, Sessions does not have a ten-year term that creates some normative expectation of retention. It would be, of course, inappropriate to fire the attorney general for having the temerity to follow Justice Department recusal policies on the advice of career lawyers, but it’s also inappropriate to whine publicly about his conduct without removing him...If Attorney General Jeff Sessions does not resign this morning, it will reflect nothing more or less than a lack of self respect on his part—a willingness to hold office even with the overt disdain of the President of the United States, at whose pleasure he serves, nakedly on the record...the President is openly expressing bitterness toward his attorney general for following the rules—because the rules don’t favor Trump’s interests. He wants an attorney general who will actively supervise the Justice Department, and the Russia investigation, in a fashion congenial to his interests, and he has no compunction about saying so explicitly. He made perfectly clear that he regrets appointing Sessions. He made equally clear that Sessions’s job is, in his mind, a personal service contract to him and that if Sessions couldn’t deliver on service to Trump, he shouldn’t have taken the position.

Rest here - https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2017/07/20/should-jeff-sessions-resign-n2357580

[Kathianne]

Sessions has been nothing but decent with Trump. Indeed, it is not going too far to speculate that Trump owes Sessions the Presidency. It was Sessions that gave him some respectability by endorsing him over Cruz or Rubio when not another Senator would do so.

One might even wonder if these types of publically humiliating temper tantrums aren't a bit of his problem in filling vacancies in the executive branch. Would you really want to work for this guy?

[SMTA]

Sessions has been nothing but decent with Trump. Indeed, it is not going to far to speculate that Trump owes Sessions the Presidency. It was Sessions that gave him some respectability by endorsing him over Cruz or Rubio when not another Senator would do so.

One might even wonder if these types of publically humiliating temper tantrums aren't a bit of his problem in filling vacancies in the executive branch. Would you really want to work for this guy?
Trump will throw anybody under the bus who does not kiss his ass.
Nice to see that Sessions has a spine and big nads, and is not scared of Bully Trump.
Good for him.
No way I would work for that lying moron.

[jimnyc]

Sessions has been nothing but decent with Trump. Indeed, it is not going to far to speculate that Trump owes Sessions the Presidency. It was Sessions that gave him some respectability by endorsing him over Cruz or Rubio when not another Senator would do so.

One might even wonder if these types of publically humiliating temper tantrums aren't a bit of his problem in filling vacancies in the executive branch. Would you really want to work for this guy?

I suppose it would depend on the job, for me anyway. I still think he's more than a fantastic president, and getting a shitload done, that is more or less being ignored, while the discussions that go on forever are mainly of things that turn out to be lies, or from "unknown sources" that turn out to be nothing".

This was a shit thing to say about Sessions, so far removed from when he recused himself. No way to sling that one and make it sound rosy. I don't pretend to know their working relationship.

But I would still work for him. I'm not going to micro-judge and have his presidency be determined back and forth based on every issue that should arise, especially when the overwhelming majority of his success stories are being ignored.

[Kathianne]

Trump will throw anybody under the bus who does not kiss his ass.
Nice to see that Sessions has a spine and big nads, and is not scared of Bully Trump.
Good for him.

I don't know wtf Trump thinks he's gaining with this. Sessions reportedly offered to resign when the criticism was 'private' though leaked. This public humiliation, after such an offer? Seems to be a Trump meltdown over the lack of control a 'President' has once the wheels start turning. He's not good at playing 'politics' which I get is one of the reasons he is beloved by some. He 'hits' anyone, anytime. He's not only not PC, he veers towards crudity and that's ok too or at least not PC.

It does seem well known though that he demands 'loyalty' from those who work for him. It was said that he returned the loyalty for those who worked for him, though there were a few that said it was not true. Now however it certainly is plain that it's a one way street in the political Trump. We saw it with Christy, now Sessions. There were glimmers of bus throwing with others. Even if giving him the benefit of the doubt regarding his prior loyalties, in the political arena these men and women he nominates if confirmed, may well serve at his 'pleasure,' they work for the people of the US, not him personally. His personal demands and interests are not likely to attract others with these behaviors. It's being made clear that the biggest problem he has with Sessions is that Sessions followed the rules regarding recusal.

[jimnyc]

In every presidency there are cabinet members that may leave, or come aboard. There are a lot more employees above and beyond that also leaving in every presidency. This move with Sessions is definitely a shit move. But I'm hardly going to base every person and every working relationship he has off of one interaction.

I don't see anyone working for him freaking out. Nor dos he have a history of such as an employer. I've read and heard an awful lot of stories about his loyalty to others though.

I have no idea what his end game is here, if one. I don't agree with anything I'm seeing or reading though, and can't make heads or tails out of it.

I'm sure he feels bombarded over the endless accusations about Russia, and can't have Sessions do much. Still no reason to bring him up in the interview though. Maybe he would prefer someone new, someone that wouldn't have their hands tied? I don't know.

A bad move for sure, but I don't believe one that defines the man, nor all of his working relationships.

[Kathianne]

I suppose it would depend on the job, for me anyway. I still think he's more than a fantastic president, and getting a shitload done, that is more or less being ignored, while the discussions that go on forever are mainly of things that turn out to be lies, or from "unknown sources" that turn out to be nothing".

This was a shit thing to say about Sessions, so far removed from when he recused himself. No way to sling that one and make it sound rosy. I don't pretend to know their working relationship.

But I would still work for him. I'm not going to micro-judge and have his presidency be determined back and forth based on every issue that should arise, especially when the overwhelming majority of his success stories are being ignored.

Well I don't worry that I'll ever be considered for any position, but if the impossible happened, no, I wouldn't. It's not often one would know the person holding your reputation in their hands, or rather through their mouth into a mic or recorder, is a bully. In this case, if you didn't know that, you don't belong for consideration. Bullies are not good to work for as a general rule.

He's gotten some things done, a 'shitload' is overstating. Most have been executive orders-once again ruling by pen. Like Obama, he has problems playing nicely with others, thus the failures he's running into regarding legislative actions. This little meeting with the NYT, (who the hell though that would be a good idea, btw?), is not likely to be repairing those problems. His behavior towards Sessions, the unfortunate reminder of what he'd said about McCain back during the primaries, isn't bringing forward an era of good feelings anytime soon.

I thought GW had problems dealing with the press, which he did. He couldn't hold a candle to what Trump is bringing upon himself with his lack of self-control regarding tweeting, talking with the press, and going off script speaking with some foreign leaders. No, I'm not saying the dinner talk with Putin, rather things like his difficulties with Merkel and some others. I don't think he understands the 'responsibility of authority' that is inherent in the Presidency. It doesn't seem to awe him in the least, part of the reason I think he's seriously unaware, but he is diminishing the office when he does these things, every bit as much as Obama did with his constant bowing and apologies in those first few months.

[SMTA]

I don't know wtf Trump thinks he's gaining with this. Sessions reportedly offered to resign when the criticism was 'private' though leaked. This public humiliation, after such an offer? Seems to be a Trump meltdown over the lack of control a 'President' has once the wheels start turning. He's not good at playing 'politics' which I get is one of the reasons he is beloved by some. He 'hits' anyone, anytime. He's not only not PC, he veers towards crudity and that's ok too or at least not PC.

It does seem well known though that he demands 'loyalty' from those who work for him. It was said that he returned the loyalty for those who worked for him, though there were a few that said it was not true. Now however it certainly is plain that it's a one way street in the political Trump. We saw it with Christy, now Sessions. There were glimmers of bus throwing with others. Even if giving him the benefit of the doubt regarding his prior loyalties, in the political arena these men and women he nominates if confirmed, may well serve at his 'pleasure,' they work for the people of the US, not him personally. His personal demands and interests are not likely to attract others with these behaviors. It's being made clear that the biggest problem he has with Sessions is that Sessions followed the rules regarding recusal.
Trump wants absolute loyalty, yet returns none - the mark of a spoiled child.
The hundreds of positions that have not been filled are due solely to Trump's childish demands.
His behavior is because of his silver spoon mentality, coupled with immaturity.

[jimnyc]

I'm more than confident that not wanting to work for him, and understating anything he does at all, pretty much would have been assured about you before he took the oath. You can think it's over stating things, perhaps. From my POV, I've seen you acknowledge but a fingers count worth of his successes. I surely don't want to argue with you about it. But look at the post I made earlier, with the maybe what, 2 or 3 accomplishments of his? How many have been addressed here? But dare he make a comment on twitter, now THAT has to be addressed!

Like I have always stated, that's why I concentrate on accomplishments at the end of the day. What things I wanted that are being completed. While perhaps he has barely done anything whatsoever, perhaps maybe I had my sets sight much, much lower than I had thought then. :laugh:

I understand your POV is different though, I can respect that. We see it differently. Oh well.

[jimnyc]

The hundreds of positions that have not been filled are due solely to Trump's childish demands.

Can you point to some proof of this, reputable proof, not opinions? And proof that these positions are positions that Trump himself is in charge of making the hiring decisions as well, please.

[Kathianne]

I'm more than confident that not wanting to work for him, and understating anything he does at all, pretty much would have been assured about you before he took the oath. You can think it's over stating things, perhaps. From my POV, I've seen you acknowledge but a fingers count worth of his successes. I surely don't want to argue with you about it. But look at the post I made earlier, with the maybe what, 2 or 3 accomplishments of his? How many have been addressed here? But dare he make a comment on twitter, now THAT has to be addressed!

Like I have always stated, that's why I concentrate on accomplishments at the end of the day. What things I wanted that are being completed. While perhaps he has barely done anything whatsoever, perhaps maybe I had my sets sight much, much lower than I had thought then. :laugh:

I understand your POV is different though, I can respect that. We see it differently. Oh well.

You're right, we come from different places. One of the things many people like about Trump is that he is consistently Trump. He is, Lord help us. While there are positions of his that I disagree with, mostly along the same lines I disagree with most Democrats; there are some that I agree with. Certainly more that I agree with than I ever would have with Hillary for instance.

There are few politicians that I feel good about, many that I think are pretty miserable human beings. Never before have I felt a visceral repulsion towards one that I agreed with though on several important positions. I could not overcome the personal repulsion and said so. I fear that his behaviors will lead to a very bad place for the country, though it's a 'feeling' and it bothers me more than any of you that I can't overcome this. I'm walking around in a state of cognitive dissonance. It sucks!

I did read your other post. I do agree with his 'tough stance' on Syria. I even agree with his 'gut' in the disagreement with Tillerson over the machinations in the Middle East with Qatar and others. Those decisions, along with giving the DOD the flexibility they need are among the important things I agree with. Court choices too. If those things work out, if he can find a way to box NK in, we're less likely to find more wars.

However, good presidents are rated on their legislative successes during times of peace. To get those one has to be able to deal with Congress. A pushover won't do; neither will a bully, thanks to the wisdom of the writers of the Constitution. There are 3 branches.

[aboutime]

Trump will throw anybody under the bus who does not kiss his ass.
Nice to see that Sessions has a spine and big nads, and is not scared of Bully Trump.
Good for him.
No way I would work for that lying moron.


Really SMTA? So tell us. How many political positions have you held, or been elected to since you learned to be a hater? Better yet. Let us know when you became a BiLLIONAIRE, or ran for President? How easy it is for the stupid to make comments like yours, and not believe you sound as stupid as Chucky Schumer, or Nancy Pelosi.
Why...you even qualify to be a speaker for MAXIPAD Waters.
One more thing. Are you in much pain when you speak out of your ass?

[NightTrain]

You're right, we come from different places. One of the things many people like about Trump is that he is consistently Trump. He is, Lord help us. While there are positions of his that I disagree with, mostly along the same lines I disagree with most Democrats; there are some that I agree with. Certainly more that I agree with than I ever would have with Hillary for instance.

There are few politicians that I feel good about, many that I think are pretty miserable human beings. Never before have I felt a visceral repulsion towards one that I agreed with though on several important positions. I could not overcome the personal repulsion and said so. I fear that his behaviors will lead to a very bad place for the country, though it's a 'feeling' and it bothers me more than any of you that I can't overcome this. I'm walking around in a state of cognitive dissonance. It sucks!

I did read your other post. I do agree with his 'tough stance' on Syria. I even agree with his 'gut' in the disagreement with Tillerson over the machinations in the Middle East with Qatar and others. Those decisions, along with giving the DOD the flexibility they need are among the important things I agree with. Court choices too. If those things work out, if he can find a way to box NK in, we're less likely to find more wars.

However, good presidents are rated on their legislative successes during times of peace. To get those one has to be able to deal with Congress. A pushover won't do; neither will a bully, thanks to the wisdom of the writers of the Constitution. There are 3 branches.


Jeff has the aisle seat, I have the window. We're still saving you the middle seat, girlie!

[Kathianne]

Jeff has the aisle seat, I have the window. We're still saving you the middle seat, girlie!

I'd be glad to ride with Jeff and yourself nearly anywhere, just not on that particular train. ;) I'm afraid there's not anything that has made me change my mind regarding my personal choice. Yes, I'm glad Hillary lost, but the damage of the past election is likely to be very long lasting. Now that's my opinion, but will say that the schism I spoke about nearly from the beginning is definitely forming if not already there.

I think Trump could have turned this around, though we're now 6 months in and he doesn't show an inkling towards doing so.

Indeed, there looks to be some evidence that the GOP has actually been shrinking since June of 2016, more rapidly since he won the nomination. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/upshot/why-trumps-base-of-support-may-be-smaller-than-it-seems.html

[SMTA]

Can you point to some proof of this, reputable proof, not opinions? And proof that these positions are positions that Trump himself is in charge of making the hiring decisions as well, please.

Yup.This has been common knowledge for some time.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/24/help-wanted-trump-administration-still-has-hundreds-of-jobs-to-fill.html

Trump has complained bitterly about stonewalling by Democrats, who have withheld support for many of the president's Cabinet-level nominees. Half of Trump's picks were approved by slim majorities.


Trump has given no names for most slots

But Democrats in Congress can't stall nominations that haven't been made.
As of Thursday, the White House had yet to put forward the names of candidates for 475 of the 554 key positions that require Senate confirmation, according to the Partnership for Public Service, a nonpartisan group that advises incoming administrations.
The longest list of empty desks waiting for nominations is at the State Department, which has more than 100 vacancies, including the dozens of ambassadors appointed by the Obama administration who were fired by Trump on Inauguration Day.
In the meantime, Trump has quietly hired some 400 staffers — without Senate approval — to begin working throughout the executive branch and coordinating with the West Wing.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

[SMTA]

Really SMTA? So tell us. How many political positions have you held, or been elected to since you learned to be a hater? Better yet. Let us know when you became a BiLLIONAIRE, or ran for President? How easy it is for the stupid to make comments like yours, and not believe you sound as stupid as Chucky Schumer, or Nancy Pelosi.
Why...you even qualify to be a speaker for MAXIPAD Waters.
One more thing. Are you in much pain when you speak out of your ass?

I don't need to own a dog to know what dog shit looks and smells like.

Look at you desperately throwing around incorrect labels. Tsk, tsk.

[jimnyc]

Trump wants absolute loyalty, yet returns none - the mark of a spoiled child.
The hundreds of positions that have not been filled are due solely to Trump's childish demands.
His behavior is because of his silver spoon mentality, coupled with immaturity.


Yup.This has been common knowledge for some time.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/24/help-wanted-trump-administration-still-has-hundreds-of-jobs-to-fill.html

I didn't see anything in there about these jobs being Trump's job in the WH to hire? I didn't see anything in there about childish demands or other things you brought up?

I thought it was common knowledge that this was 100% his job to hire all of these people? Seriously, he does sit at a table and sift through resumes and decide who gets gigs and who doesn't, correct? And it's his childish demands that these folks don't get the gigs, correct?

I don't see any of that at all in your article, but I just know you'll post it for me in the next one. :)

[Abbey Marie]

Trump needs to control himself better. Count to 10, practice meditation, smoke weed, whatever. And his ego is gargantuan.

But I would love to see how any one else would behave if they too were constantly and publicly attacked with innuendo and even outright lies. If there were calls for impeachment before they were even sworn in. There are folks even on this board who have gotten so steamed about words on this screen that they threatened to physically attack other members.

I highly doubt that in the face of those relentless attacks, any of us would be as restrained as we expect him to be. Point is, like Trump or hate him, it is very easy to criticize from our armchairs.

[aboutime]

i don't need to own a dog to know what dog shit looks and smells like.

Look at you desperately throwing around incorrect labels. Tsk, tsk.


smta. I never lie. Have no reason to, and never will. So, why would i lie to you?

[Kathianne]

It looks like Sessions is going to be gone, Friday night news drop:

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/07/21/uh-oh-russian-ambassador-told-moscow-discussed-trump-campaign-matters-sessions/


Uh Oh: Russian Ambassador Told Moscow He Discussed Trump Campaign Matters With Sessions

ALLAHPUNDITPosted at 8:01 pm on July 21, 2017

“I never met with any Russian officials to discuss issues of the campaign,” said Sessions in March (http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/01/politics/jeff-sessions-russian-ambassador-meetings/index.html) when it was first revealed that he’d met with the Russian ambassador, Sergei Kislyak, last year. Those meetings were in my capacity as a senator, Sessions insisted, not as a campaign staffer for Donald Trump. The most he would admit to was that he didn’t recall ever discussing the campaign with any ambassador but that diplomats do tend to be “gossipy” (http://hotair.com/archives/2017/03/02/breaking-sessions-to-recuse-himself-from-investigations-related-to-last-years-presidential-campaigns/) about American politics. Uh huh.

And now here we are, with a bombshell leak (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sessions-discussed-trump-campaign-related-matters-with-russian-ambassador-us-intelligence-intercepts-show/2017/07/21/3e704692-6e44-11e7-9c15-177740635e83_story.html?utm_term=.c9c8e3be22e6) to end the week. Question: Who ordered the Code Red on Jeff Sessions?



Uh oh: Russian ambassador told Moscow he discussed Trump campaign matters with Sessions (http://hotair.com/archives/2017/07/21/uh-oh-russian-ambassador-told-moscow-discussed-trump-campaign-matters-sessions/)

Ambassador Sergey Kislyak’s accounts of two conversations with Sessions — then a top foreign policy adviser to Republican candidate Donald Trump — were intercepted by U.S. spy agencies, which monitor the communications of senior Russian officials both in the United States and in Russia. Sessions initially failed to disclose his contacts with Kislyak and then said that the meetings were not about the Trump campaign.



One U.S. official said that Sessions — who testified that he has no recollection of the April encounter — has provided “misleading” statements that are “contradicted by other evidence.” A former official said that the intelligence indicates that Sessions and Kislyak had “substantive” discussions on matters including Trump’s positions on Russia-related issues and prospects for U.S.-Russia relations in a Trump administration…

A former U.S. official who read the Kislyak reports said that the Russian ambassador reported speaking with Sessions about issues that were central to the campaign, including Trump’s positions on key policy matters of significance to Moscow.



Democrats have been flaying Sessions for months for supposedly perjuring himself (http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/07/politics/al-franken-jeff-sessions-perjury/index.html) by not disclosing his meetings with Kislayk. Now they’ve got larger caliber ammo, evidence that Sessions lied outright about what he and Kislyak discussed. Sessions is besieged on all sides — the left hates him, Trump admittedly regrets hiring him, and his own deputies at the DOJ will be left wondering if their boss lied to Congress under oath about the extent of his dialogue with Putin’s top lackey in the U.S. How does he stay in the job?

...

[Drummond]

I don't need to own a dog to know what dog shit looks and smells like.

Look at you desperately throwing around incorrect labels. Tsk, tsk.

I wonder why you hate labelling so much, SMTA ? Is it because a label can succinctly quantify an agenda, a purposeful direction intended, that it can summarise the worth of what's being labelled ?

I note your criticism of Trump, of course. It doesn't surprise me .. also, of course.

On Trump, I'd offer this observation: Trump is doing his absolute damndest to deliver on what he promised in his various election addresses. He additionally has no time for those who, in the service of his Administration, do discredit to his Presidential direction.

I just see this as eminently reasonable. Trump promised strong leadership ... a 'can and will do' style, one which intended to 'drain the swamp'. Now, I daresay he's finding this to be a harder task than he expected. Nonetheless, in Trump, we don't have a quitter. We have someone utterly dedicated to defeat opposition and to expose it for what it is ... AND ... in a manner giving zero latitude to any fudging coming out of 'political correctness'.

The world could do with more politicians of his standing, in my view. The US is lucky to have him. But I'm sure, SMTA, you'll hate that assessment.

Am I right ? :rolleyes:

[SMTA]

I wonder why you hate labelling so much, SMTA ? Is it because a label can succinctly quantify an agenda, a purposeful direction intended, that it can summarise the worth of what's being labelled ?

I note your criticism of Trump, of course. It doesn't surprise me .. also, of course.

On Trump, I'd offer this observation: Trump is doing his absolute damndest to deliver on what he promised in his various election addresses. He additionally has no time for those who, in the service of his Administration, do discredit to his Presidential direction.

I just see this as eminently reasonable. Trump promised strong leadership ... a 'can and will do' style, one which intended to 'drain the swamp'. Now, I daresay he's finding this to be a harder task than he expected. Nonetheless, in Trump, we don't have a quitter. We have someone utterly dedicated to defeat opposition and to expose it for what it is ... AND ... in a manner giving zero latitude to any fudging coming out of 'political correctness'.

The world could do with more politicians of his standing, in my view. The US is lucky to have him. But I'm sure, SMTA, you'll hate that assessment.

Am I right ? :rolleyes:
Why would I care about the opinion of a socialist foreigner who has no dog in our fight.

[aboutime]

Why would I care about the opinion of a socialist foreigner who has no dog in our fight.


SMTA. You should go back to your Pre-school classes, and see if your teacher will let you play nice with the other UNINFORMED, UNEDUCATED little rugrats.
Obviously, you have no idea about Sir Drummond (as I address him). He is far more Conservative than you, and your immature needs to use name calling at recess. And, as far as being a DOG IN THE FIGHT. He has far more important words to share here than you, as you HUNT FOR YOUR BONE.

[SMTA]

SMTA. You should go back to your Pre-school classes, and see if your teacher will let you play nice with the other UNINFORMED, UNEDUCATED little rugrats.
Obviously, you have no idea about Sir Drummond (as I address him). He is far more Conservative than you, and your immature needs to use name calling at recess. And, as far as being a DOG IN THE FIGHT. He has far more important words to share here than you, as you HUNT FOR YOUR BONE.
All I see him do is cry and call people socialists for no reason, and jump to conclusions while steeped in hyperbole.
If he acts like an adult, he will be treated as such.
Fascinating that I was told that he calls everybody a socialist.
I treated him just like he treated me.
He should not have started by treating me with disrespect.
He reaped exactly what he had sown.

[aboutime]

All I see him do is cry and call people socialists for no reason, and jump to conclusions while steeped in hyperbole.
If he acts like an adult, he will be treated as such.
Fascinating that I was told that he calls everybody a socialist.
I treated him just like he treated me.
He should not have started by treating me with disrespect.
He reaped exactly what he had sown.

SMTA. You should be thankful you don't live in the UK. But your assumptions, and your denial about Drummond telling the TRUTH seems to have bothered you to a defensive mode, only shown so often by LIBERALS who follow Socialist values.

[SMTA]

SMTA. You should be thankful you don't live in the UK. But your assumptions, and your denial about Drummond telling the TRUTH seems to have bothered you to a defensive mode, only shown so often by LIBERALS who follow Socialist values.
I am.
How cute that both of you share the single brain cell.
Sadly for you two, it is the dysfunctional one.

[aboutime]

I am.
How cute that both of you share the single brain cell.
Sadly for you two, it is the dysfunctional one.


Thank you so much. We have finally achieved your level by imitating you.

[Drummond]

Why would I care about the opinion of a socialist foreigner who has no dog in our fight.

I don't know. Who did you have in mind ?

I suppose I could respond to that, with some fairness, by commenting that British people, likewise, have no reason to care about an American's view on what we spend on our Royal Family ... you posted a piece which suggested criticism of that issue.

But in any case ... what the US does, has worldwide repurcussions. People in other countries have a right to their views, and to express them.

Of course, it stands to reason that you'll get a better, more reasonable contribution, from a Conservative than a Socialist. Socialists from other parts of the world tend to be against the USA because it has the temerity to prove that a Capitalist system not only works, but works spectacularly well. Such an example proves, every day, that Socialism has no need to exist and plays no 'vital, irreplaceable role' in the happiness or wellbeing of humanity.

Indeed, I'd love to see Socialism universally discredited and become extinct in the world.

[aboutime]

I don't know. Who did you have in mind ?

But in any case ... what the US does, has worldwide repurcussions. People in other countries have a right to their views, and to express them.

Of course, it stands to reason that you'll get a better, more reasonable contribution, from a Conservative than a Socialist. Socialists from other parts of the world tend to be against the USA because it has the temerity to prove that a Capitalist system not only works, but works spectacularly well.

Sir Drummond. See how upset, insulted, offended, and angry they get when anyone dares to ACT JUST LIKE THEM? This member we are talking about claims to be smarter than everyone else. And, sadly. Constantly proves how being smarter (in his own mind) is no more convincing than a good Bowel Movement.:laugh:

[Drummond]

All I see him do is cry and call people socialists for no reason, and jump to conclusions while steeped in hyperbole.
If he acts like an adult, he will be treated as such.
Fascinating that I was told that he calls everybody a socialist.
I treated him just like he treated me.
He should not have started by treating me with disrespect.
He reaped exactly what he had sown.

Nope. I've never done any such thing. Sorry to disappoint you.

If I judge anyone to be Socialist, I always do so from a basis which suggests the truth of it. I'm well aware that to accuse anyone of being a Socialist is a nasty thing to do, UNLESS, to do so is supportable. Therefore, I make sure that there's reason to, before contemplating such an assertion.

You say (& ridiculously so) ... that ...


I was told that he calls everybody a socialist

That's just bizarre, and more, this whole Board will know it's not true. I can easily give you a list of contributors here who are not only Conservative, but whom I respect BECAUSE they are. There are many good people here.

No. Give me reason to think I'm viewing Socialist thinking, and, I'll draw a conclusion from that reason as to the Socialist bona fides of the source of it. This is eminently reasonable. It would DEFY reason to REFUSE to learn from the evidence of my own eyes.

Of course ... a Socialist might not agree. Socialists do tend to only see what propaganda says they must see, and will refuse to recognise anything else if it suits them to. That is a part of what makes them so flawed.

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond. See how upset, insulted, offended, and angry they get when anyone dares to ACT JUST LIKE THEM? This member we are talking about claims to be smarter than everyone else. And, sadly. Constantly proves how being smarter (in his own mind) is no more convincing than a good Bowel Movement.:laugh:

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

I think this is all very sad, Aboutime.

I've just posted the point that I judge according to reason. If given a reason to think anyone is a Socialist, then, of course, I'll recognise that in my responses (if any !) to such a person. I mean ... why wouldn't I ??

Perhaps Socialists are, deep down, ashamed of what they are at some level, and hate it when anyone comes along to shine a spotlight in their direction ? I suppose I can understand that, maybe even sympathise.

But the facts here are simple enough. I'm a diehard Conservative, and I consider I have every conceivable right and reason to tackle a Socialist in accordance with my convictions, if and when I choose to. If Socialists out there don't happen to like it .... well, tough .....

[jimnyc]

Sessions looks to be on the way out, more so than before. I like him a lot, but things need to be better in the WH, and if this is what it takes, so be it. And IF it happens, man I would still love to see Giuliani in there.

He now referred to Sessions as "beleaguered" on twitter.

Rather than let it drag out and harm the WH, Trump needs to cut him loose if this is how he feels. Prepare someone and make the deal. "I" don't like it, but many do. :(

---

REPORT: POTUS Considering Replacing AG Sessions With Rudy Giuliani

Since President Trump’s recent interview with the New York Times, there’s been a lot of buzz surrounding the personal relationship between the Commander-in-Chief and Attorney General Sessions. Axios is reporting President Trump is discussing a move to replace AG Sessions with former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Axios reports:


President Trump is so unhappy with Attorney General Jeff Sessions that he has raised the possibility of bringing back Rudolph Giuliani to head the Justice Department, according to West Wing confidants.

In internal conversations, Trump has recently pondered the idea of nominating Giuliani, a stalwart of his campaign.

Even before last week’s blast at Sessions in a New York Times interview, Trump had expressed fury at Sessions — also one of the first prominent Republicans to back the Trump campaign — for recusing himself from the Russia investigation.

And in a Monday morning tweet, Trump referred to “our beleaguered A.G.” not investigating Hillary Clinton.

Our thought bubble: Trump often muses about possible personnel moves that he never makes, sometimes just to gauge the listener’s reaction. So the Giuliani balloon may go nowhere

Rest here - http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/07/report-potus-considering-replacing-ag-sessions-rudy-giuliani/

[aboutime]

The president needs to tell Jeff he admires, and appreciates him but...HE'S FIRED.

If Rudy is chosen. That will be quite a STEP UP, and warning to Dems..."It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature...."

RUDY doesn't fool around. He's just another version of Donald...A.G. RUDY sounds good to me.

Go to GOOGLE and read all of his remarks about the Clinton's, Obama, Holder, and the multitude of other OBAMA LIARS CLUB.

[pete311]

Another slam today. He is begging Sessions to resign. He won't fire him because of the optics.

[jimnyc]

Fire him, or Sessions should tell him to F off and resign.

Look, I call my own brothers nasty names. Condemn close ones for things. That doesn't mean I hate Trump or his entire presidency. But he's handling this issue with Sessions in the wrong way, way wrong, IMO. Perhaps Sessions called his Mom names when no one was looking. LOL But nah, just appears Trump wants him gone. I really don't know.

He hired the guy. No need to continue the charade, just fire him if not pleased.

I understand, he's getting killed with the Russia crap, and has no AG to protect him. Perhaps a new AG can go hog wild and do more to help him? Then why not just speak with Sessions and have him resign. Perhaps it's a plan. Sucks though.

---

Trump slams Sessions as he reportedly considers firing his own AG

President Trump continued to attack on Attorney General Jeff Sessions early Tuesday, railing against the nation’s top law enforcement officer in a series of caustic tweets.

Among other things, the president accused Sessions of taking a “very weak position” on Hillary Clinton’s supposed crimes and the leaking of classified intelligence.

https://i.imgur.com/S00eDG8.png

The Twitter barrage comes as both the Associated Press and Washington Post report that Trump is considering firing Sessions, who was the first sitting U.S. senator to endorse the celebrity real estate mogul during the campaign.

But Trump is upset that Sessions recused himself from all campaign-related investigations, including the probe into whether any Trump associates colluded with Russia during the campaign. Sessions recused himself in March after it was revealed he had undisclosed meetings with the Russian ambassador.

Rest here - https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-slams-sessions-reportedly-considers-firing-ag-120609181.html

[jimnyc]

---

REPORT: POTUS Considering Replacing AG Sessions With Rudy Giuliani

---

I read an article late last night, about also possibly having Ted Cruz nominated as the new AG - which would also be fantastic! I think either Giuliani or Cruz would be excellent choices.

[aboutime]

What if all of this noise about firing Sessions was planned by Trump, and Sessions as a means of EXPOSING the Leakers?
We all know. Sessions is a really good friend, and supporter of Trump. So..THINK ABOUT IT for a second. Trump is trying to find all of the ILLEGAL LEAKERS in the White House... What better way to do it than PLAYING THIS PRE-ARRANGED GAME?

Remember how the Libs always claim Trump is a dummy? Reminds me of the way they treated Bush too! Let's wait and see. I PREDICT SESSIONS WILL STAY. Jul 25,2017

[Kathianne]

Ah, Trump loyalty:

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/343687-trump-im-just-looking-at-firing-sessions


Trump: I'm 'just looking at' firing SessionsBY JACQUELINE THOMSEN - 07/25/17 03:38 PM EDT

...


Trump also said that Sessions’ early endorsement of his campaign “wasn’t a great loyal thing" because Sessions had nothing to lose by backing him in a state where the then-presidential candidate was popular.


“When they say he endorsed me, I went to Alabama,” Trump said about the endorsement. “I had 40,000 people. He was a senator from Alabama. I won the state by a lot, massive numbers. A lot of the states I won by massive numbers. But he was a senator, he looks at 40,000 people and he probably says, ’What do I have to lose?’ And he endorsed me. So it’s not like a great loyal thing about the endorsement."


“I’m very disappointed in Jeff Sessions,” Trump added, repeating past comments.

...

[pete311]

Trump is turning the WH into a reality tv series.

[pete311]

---

I read an article late last night, about also possibly having Ted Cruz nominated as the new AG - which would also be fantastic! I think either Giuliani or Cruz would be excellent choices.

Do you really think Rudy or Cruz would be confirmed?

[Black Diamond]

Do you really think Rudy or Cruz would be confirmed?
By pence

[aboutime]

Trump is turning the WH into a reality tv series.


As long as it Pisses You, and Other Hate-filled Liberals off...That's Great!

Call it whatever you want. Donald Trump is The President. Boo Hoo for Yoo hoo!

[Kathianne]

By pence

Are you saying you think Pence is going to be President before 2020?

[aboutime]

Are you saying you think Pence is going to be President before 2020?


Kathianne. I doubt that. But look at how Pence became the 51st vote in the Senate today. That idea of Pence in before 2020, sounds like Wishful Thinking on your part.

[Kathianne]

Was just trying to understand BD's rather cryptic post.

[Black Diamond]

Are you saying you think Pence is going to be President before 2020?
No

[Black Diamond]

Are you saying you think Pence is going to be President before 2020?
No I just wouldn't be surprised to see pence execute his 51st vote to break a few more ties

[Kathianne]

Got to laugh at 'fake news mantra.' Watching F & F while doing some applications, Scaramucci is following Doocy's meme that the harsh words towards Sessions has resulted in an expected announcement that he'll be opening an investigation into the leaks. Considering this has been reported for quite awhile, it doesn't work. Wouldn't be surprised to see Trump fire Sessions in the next few hours, undoing all this 'transparency.'

How about they take the 'health care vote win' and work on the tax reform?

Ok, before I could move to post, they've sequed to 'Is Tillerson really just taking time off?' Well, perhaps...

[Kathianne]

Heard some of these yesterday, perhaps Trump will rethink the Sessions attacks and take the 'he gets it now' meme?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/republicans-warn-trump-dont-fire-jeff-sessions/article/2629703

[Gunny]

Speaking of no-account "Jeff's" jimnyc where's that worthless hillbilly hiding? Probably running a leftwing message board on the sly with Gabby.:poke:

[jimnyc]

Speaking of no-account "Jeff's" jimnyc where's that worthless hillbilly hiding? Probably running a leftwing message board on the sly with Gabby.:poke:

I'm never sure anymore, maybe he just doesn't like me anymore? LOL :dunno: He's off riding his bike here and everywhere for the summer and nicer weather. I'm sure he'll hopefully get to popping back on here when the weather starts getting colder!

[pete311]

"Everybody in D.C. Shld b warned that the agenda for the judiciary Comm is set for rest of 2017. Judges first subcabinet 2nd / AG no way"
https://twitter.com/ChuckGrassley/status/890365726825099271

[SassyLady]

Trump needs to focus on anything but Sessions. If he fires Sessions, Tillerson might decide to leave. High turnover is indicative of poor leadership. Just as he wants time to turn things around, so should his staff be given time.

[Black Diamond]

Not sure why he didn't go with Rudy, whom he has known a long time.

[SassyLady]

Not sure why he didn't go with Rudy, whom he has known a long time.

Rudy did not want to give up all his foreign entanglements.

[Kathianne]

Rudy did not want to give up all his foreign entanglements.

I agree. Besides, Sessions is and was more 'Trumpy' than Giuliani would ever be. In any case, Trump picked him, Priebus, Bannon, Spicer, Tillerson, McMasters, and the rest. Pretty much he's dissed them all.

Now it's being reported that not only Matis, but the Joint Chiefs overall, are quite upset that an announcement on Twitter instead of an order in the form of an EO, was used to 'announce' a major change regarding the military-which is is not. That takes an order and 'normal' procedures include some discussion with those leading the military. Social media discussions or pronouncements do not constitute an order.

[SassyLady]

I agree. Besides, Sessions is and was more 'Trumpy' than Giuliani would ever be. In any case, Trump picked him, Priebus, Bannon, Spicer, Tillerson, McMasters, and the rest. Pretty much he's dissed them all.

Now it's being reported that not only Matis, but the Joint Chiefs overall, are quite upset that an announcement on Twitter instead of an order in the form of an EO, was used to 'announce' a major change regarding the military-which is is not. That takes an order and 'normal' procedures include some discussion with those leading the military. Social media discussions or pronouncements do not constitute an order.

He's definitely unorthodox, however, at some point some stability is needed. Not complacency ... just less turmoil in WH. There's enough turmoil in Congress and media.

[Black Diamond]

Didn't Obama allow gays and trannies in via executive order ?

[aboutime]

Didn't Obama allow gays and trannies in via executive order ?


Black Diamond. YES he did with this ...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13672

And, the President can REVOKE them....
https://qz.com/898683/can-an-executive-order-be-revoked/

The president can revoke, modify, or supersede any executive order: Presidents often undo the executive orders of their predecessors, but they have rarely retracted or overridden their own executive orders. “This early on, to admit that you’ve made such a huge mistake would be very politically damaging,” says Alvin Tillery, an associate professor of political science at Northwestern University. “And I think that the response with protests and so on, it would just give further fodder to people who want to challenge [Trump’s] policy positions.”

[Black Diamond]

Black Diamond. YES he did with this ...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13672

And, the President can REVOKE them....
https://qz.com/898683/can-an-executive-order-be-revoked/

The president can revoke, modify, or supersede any executive order: Presidents often undo the executive orders of their predecessors, but they have rarely retracted or overridden their own executive orders. “This early on, to admit that you’ve made such a huge mistake would be very politically damaging,” says Alvin Tillery, an associate professor of political science at Northwestern University. “And I think that the response with protests and so on, it would just give further fodder to people who want to challenge [Trump’s] policy positions.”
Well said. Hopefully he moves forward officially.

[Kathianne]

Didn't Obama allow gays and trannies in via executive order ?

Which would be fine, though Tweets are not that.

[Black Diamond]

Which would be fine, though Tweets are not that.
I know.

[SMTA]

Nope. I've never done any such thing. Sorry to disappoint you.

If I judge anyone to be Socialist, I always do so from a basis which suggests the truth of it. I'm well aware that to accuse anyone of being a Socialist is a nasty thing to do, UNLESS, to do so is supportable. Therefore, I make sure that there's reason to, before contemplating such an assertion.

You say (& ridiculously so) ... that ...



That's just bizarre, and more, this whole Board will know it's not true. I can easily give you a list of contributors here who are not only Conservative, but whom I respect BECAUSE they are. There are many good people here.

No. Give me reason to think I'm viewing Socialist thinking, and, I'll draw a conclusion from that reason as to the Socialist bona fides of the source of it. This is eminently reasonable. It would DEFY reason to REFUSE to learn from the evidence of my own eyes.

Of course ... a Socialist might not agree. Socialists do tend to only see what propaganda says they must see, and will refuse to recognise anything else if it suits them to. That is a part of what makes them so flawed.
You are truly a legend in your own mind.