Should Jeff Sessions Have Recused Himself?

[OKTexas]

I thought he said if there was any conflict, which there wasn't. The dems just cried loud enough, in my opinion, he did and they got exactly what they wanted.

If Trump had a problem with what he said in the confirmation hearing he should have withdrawn the nomination then, not start backstabbing after 5 months. Hey I voted for the guy, but when he fucks up, I have no problem saying it. Sessions is doing a good job, Trump had no reason to go there.


.

What do you think? Should he have recused himself at the request of the Democrats, from the "muh Russian" witch hunt, or should he have remained loyal to Trump?

He did NOTHING WRONG. So of course he shouldn't have. It was a spineless whimpy move. To be expected from an aging swamp critter..

He had to because he was a supporter and part of the Trump campaign. He could not conduct a investigation that could potentially involve Trump and his campaign.

He was not a critical part of the campaign. That's ridiculous. Appearing at stump speeches is not a disqualifier. Even ENDORSING a candidate is not a disqualifier.

You might to read the DOJs guidance on recusal.


.

I have looked at that. And his role in the campaign was as a stage prop and a communicator with existing Leadership in Congress. He was not a full-time or active director of that campaign.

And of course -- his "meetings" with Russians = 0...

He also made TV appearances as a surrogate, he was involved as his schedule would allow.


.

 

[flacaltenn]

I thought he said if there was any conflict, which there wasn't. The dems just cried loud enough, in my opinion, he did and they got exactly what they wanted.

He did NOTHING WRONG. So of course he shouldn't have. It was a spineless whimpy move. To be expected from an aging swamp critter..

He had to because he was a supporter and part of the Trump campaign. He could not conduct a investigation that could potentially involve Trump and his campaign.

He was not a critical part of the campaign. That's ridiculous. Appearing at stump speeches is not a disqualifier. Even ENDORSING a candidate is not a disqualifier.

You might to read the DOJs guidance on recusal.


.

I have looked at that. And his role in the campaign was as a stage prop and a communicator with existing Leadership in Congress. He was not a full-time or active director of that campaign.

And of course -- his "meetings" with Russians = 0...

He also made TV appearances as a surrogate, he was involved as his schedule would allow.


.

Campaign commercials? Or just advocacy? If advocacy is a crime -- it has to be Hatch Act type of crime.
He was a senator. Most of what he did was in his ROLE as a Senator..

 

[OKTexas]

He had to because he was a supporter and part of the Trump campaign. He could not conduct a investigation that could potentially involve Trump and his campaign.

He was not a critical part of the campaign. That's ridiculous. Appearing at stump speeches is not a disqualifier. Even ENDORSING a candidate is not a disqualifier.

You might to read the DOJs guidance on recusal.


.

I have looked at that. And his role in the campaign was as a stage prop and a communicator with existing Leadership in Congress. He was not a full-time or active director of that campaign.

And of course -- his "meetings" with Russians = 0...

He also made TV appearances as a surrogate, he was involved as his schedule would allow.


.

Campaign commercials? Or just advocacy? If advocacy is a crime -- it has to be Hatch Act type of crime.
He was a senator. Most of what he did was in his ROLE as a Senator..

I guess we see it differently.


.

 

[flacaltenn]

He was not a critical part of the campaign. That's ridiculous. Appearing at stump speeches is not a disqualifier. Even ENDORSING a candidate is not a disqualifier.

You might to read the DOJs guidance on recusal.


.

I have looked at that. And his role in the campaign was as a stage prop and a communicator with existing Leadership in Congress. He was not a full-time or active director of that campaign.

And of course -- his "meetings" with Russians = 0...

He also made TV appearances as a surrogate, he was involved as his schedule would allow.


.

Campaign commercials? Or just advocacy? If advocacy is a crime -- it has to be Hatch Act type of crime.
He was a senator. Most of what he did was in his ROLE as a Senator..

I guess we see it differently.


.

Not necessarily. Outline his campaign role and duties to me. Maybe I'm not seeing the EXTENT of his involvement. Being a "stage prop" and an endorser is not cause to recuse. If that was true -- dozens of Obama era justices and DOJ people would be in trouble..

 

[OKTexas]

You might to read the DOJs guidance on recusal.


.

I have looked at that. And his role in the campaign was as a stage prop and a communicator with existing Leadership in Congress. He was not a full-time or active director of that campaign.

And of course -- his "meetings" with Russians = 0...

He also made TV appearances as a surrogate, he was involved as his schedule would allow.


.

Campaign commercials? Or just advocacy? If advocacy is a crime -- it has to be Hatch Act type of crime.
He was a senator. Most of what he did was in his ROLE as a Senator..

I guess we see it differently.


.

Not necessarily. Outline his campaign role and duties to me. Maybe I'm not seeing the EXTENT of his involvement. Being a "stage prop" and an endorser is not cause to recuse. If that was true -- dozens of Obama era justices and DOJ people would be in trouble..

Feel free to google his appearances, he thinks he did the right thing, I agree with him. You're free to disagree, it's not worth arguing about, it's a done deal.


.