The next best thing to going the extra mile for ethical purity is pretending to.
My interpretation is that Bannon, Trump, and the other insiders are running scared about what Sessions could reveal if he were angered by being forced to resign–and that Bannon has made the assessment that Sessions will either be forced* to resign or forced to recuse himself.
Lesser of two evils, keeping-Sessions-quiet-wise.
*By public opinion acting on GOP Congress-people worried about their seats.
I’d have been happier if Jeff “Dunham Puppet” Sessions had announced his sudden desire to spend “spend more time with his family,” but I guess a recusal is a small step in the right direction.
Based on what he said, it boils down to “I don’t have the ethical judgement to recuse myself, I needed several people tell me I should.”
He looks exactly like Cotton Hill. More than Mike Pence does.
Well, yeah. I mean, Pence is Race Bannon, isn’t he?
So, he’s going to recuse himself (as I thought he would), but that doesn’t mean there will be a SP, right? Might he have some deputy run the investigation?
Jared Kushner was also at a December meeting with Michael Flynn and Sergei Kislyak, which took place at Trump Tower.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/02/us/politics/kushner-flynn-sessions-russia.html
Kushner is in a political appointed role, atm, so no lying under oath. But this meeting at Trump Tower makes it more obvious that Donald was lying when he said he didn’t know about Flynn’s contact with Russia (as if there was any doubt.)
YOU FRICKIN NAILED IT! Cotton Hill - Wikipedia
Alternatively, Flynn and Kushner kept Donald out of the loop because he’s just an ignorant figurehead who doesn’t actually need to be told anything that’s going on.
Well, apologies then. I did not know we were discussing this from the [perspective of the moral and ethical vacuum that is Trump’s mind. I was unaware that the question really was “Will Trump fire him”, as opposed to “Did Sessions do something wrong”.
No.
According to The Hill, there is doubt if the meetings with the Russian ambassador could use the fig leaf of Sessions being in the Armed Services Committee.
Sessions and the Republicans tried to point at a past meeting with McCaskill with the Russian ambassador, but as McCaskill staff explained:
So, how common is for a senator to have a meeting alone with a Russian ambassador? And what was the reason for the meeting?
Why not? He’s under oath. Assuming he knew that he had, in fact, killed someone that date, he’s wilfully lying under oath. I suppose the criminal defense attorney in you could argue that the other murder isn’t “material”, but when the defendant opens the door like that, he’s making it material. By trying to portray himself as “not a murderer that day” the answer he gave has “a natural tendency to influence, or is capable of influencing, the decision of the decision-making body to which it was addressed.”
I respectfully disagree. The answer is perjury even if the answer was not compelled by the question.
Although I agree with what you said upthread about Sessons
‘Calhoun’ would be a good choice.
To me he looks less like the descendant of a Southern aristocrat plantation owner, than the 1950s-1960s-era Chamber of Commerce guy in a small to medium-sized Southern town who gets interviewed on TV explaining that their nigras were all quiet and happy until those outside agitators from up North got them all stirred up.
The Alt-Left thread in the Elections forum dropped like a rock after I pointed out that several people were making that same point. Funny how they got all quiet all of a sudden.
Not material as a matter of law, inasmuch as the answer would have elicited inadmissible 404(b) evidence anyway. And it’s not true to say that claim that someone is not a murderer on a specific day is fairly regarded as influencing the finder of fact. The assumption is that most people are not murderers most days.
It’s not a big deal, but this whole conversation started by me responding to your post where you said:
Emphasis added. Flynn was removed by Trump, so it would appear you were asking why Trump would not also remove Sessions. As noted, the “thing” that triggered Flynn’s removal was that he made Pence (and Trump) look bad. Trump couldn’t give a shit if he talked to the Russians or not.
Feel free to have the last word on this if you wish-- it’s a minor thing not worth dragging on.
I hate to continue this tangent, but 404(b) is designed to protect a defendant (or other witness) from being cross examined about other “crimes, wrongs or other acts.”
It would not prohibit testimony about the absence of other wrongs, such as “not murdering anyone that day.”
There may be other grounds to move that the answer be stricken. I wonder, however, if you can prosecute a witness for perjury on the basis of an untruthful answer that was stricken from the record. Perhaps not.
I doubt that a prosecutor would move to strike an answer like “I didn’t kill anyone that day.”
[BTW, perjury prosecutions of witnesses in litigation are exceptionally rare. Actual perjury probably happens with some frequency, but not as much as you may suspect]