Jeff Sessions is Out at the Justice Department


Jeff Sessions was out of his depth.
I am not sorry he was asked to resign.


Talk about getting killed in that deal.

By Trump appointing Sessions, we got the Mueller Investigation and Doug Jones filling a Senate seat as a Democrat in Alabama.



I hope he didn’t let the door hit him on the way out. What a total waste of two years.


Yes, fired is the appropriate word. And the timing right after the midterm elections is no accident. It is painfully obvious that Trump wishes to get Sessions out of the way and replace him with Whitaker, who is on record with saying that the Mueller investigation has gone too far, before the Democrats take control of the House. Now I am no friend or supporter of Sessions, and I realize that the firing was the culmination of Trump’s ongoing criticism and ridicule of Sessions for quite some time; however, it is also apparent that Trump is behaving in a self-serving and vindictive way by firing Sessions. Yes, he legally has the right to do what he did, and thinks he can get away with it; but this is not the action of a man who has nothing to hide, and at least some of the American people realize that.


I understand the case to be that he has no legal right to do what he did if his motive is corrupt. Which it clearly is.


So what is the president’s motive, and exactly how is it corrupt? Please be specific as I don’t understand your point.


The president has made it quite clear that he has been dissatisfied with Mr Sessions’ performance, and he has made it clear why: because Mr Sessions recused himself from oversight of the Mueller inquiry. He evidently believed Mr Sessions should oversee an inquiry in which Mr Sessions has a personal interest (thereby showing a tolerance of corruption on the president’s part).

He has made it clear that he believes the Mueller inquiry should be stopped. He has removed from office FBI staff who have pursued the subject of Russian interference in the 2016 election. He has attempted to remove Mr Mueller. The dismissal of Mr Sessions is of a piece with his behaviour towards the inquiry, in which he has a clear personal interest.

As Acting A-G he has appointed a man who has expressed opinions opposing the Mueller inquiry. The appointment of Mr Whitaker is also of a piece with the rest of his behaviour towards the Mueller inquiry, in which he has a clear personal interest.

The uncorrupt course would have been to keep his hands off the DoJ, the FBI, and the inquiry (in which he has a clear personal interest) until it is over. The uncorrupt course is not the course he has taken.


Your legal basis for saying that is motive is clear is a joke. “Clearly” is not a legal argument.

We can all speculate all w want. Sessions seems to he a good man who was horrible at his job. He needed to go.

Once the Democrats, who have been threatening the President with investigations if they took power for months actually won the house, Trump thought it was a good time to get his ducks lined up.

We dont question the motives of presidential pardons, even when it is obvious in cases like Mark Rich and Bill Clinton. Clinton was well within his rights to do that, as is Trump.

Some day, people will learn the very adult lesson that continuing to wail and moan about a President or Congress is simply not the way to usurp power. It doesnt work, and this Preisdent in particular trudges on. Not liking someone or something has little do do with whether or not a President can do it. Running better candidates and having a better message is. Perhaps the 2018 midterms were the beginning of that for the Democrats m
Why would anyone want a weak attorney general when you are being threatened unnecessarily?


We are talking about what the lawyers call oblique intent. Would a jury, having had the sequence of the president’s actions and statements laid out, think it probable that the intent of the president was to hamper or end the inquiry into his campaign’s contacts with Russian actors? I think so. Would such an intent be corrupt? Clearly.


So you say.

We’d have to look at history and see when appointees were fired/appointed/moved on etc. Post midterm elections is of course the MOST common time I recall. Ahem.

Get over it. This isn’t going to court, and isn’t going to be heard by a jury. There are other ways to make the President fail, if that is your goal; spend your energy there. Pursuing this is just a waste of time.


Your meaning is not quite clear. Are you saying it does not appear that the president’s intention is, and has been, to hamper or end the Mueller inquiry into his campaign’s contacts with Russian actors, or are you saying such behaviour would not be corrupt? Or both?


Even better? Trump made his CoS do it for him. He ain’t man enough to look directly in his eyes. Former AG’s plan? Go back home & run again for his old seat.


It doesn’t take much to connect the dots in this instance. Presidential pardons are another issue and should not be confounded with this one, which is nothing less than the obstruction of justice. Admittedly, I am not a Trump supporter. On the other hand, I have no desire to have him impeached let alone removed from office since I believe this would be a waste of the country’s time and resources, as well as a disgrace to the Office of the President. But Trump, unlike some of his predecessors–I think of Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton–makes everything so apparent by means of his behavior, while his verbal protestations ring hollow. He is a different sort, a different personality compared to those who have used deceptive techniques to hide their motives. The shame of it all, in my view, is that Trump could have been, and in some respects actually is, an innovative President, who does not think he has to confine himself to his party’s behavioral norms. It’s just that his own ego often gets in the way of his accomplishing great things for the country.


There are many who have acknowledged he could himself end the Mueller investigation if he chose. So let’s slow our collectives rolls a bit.

If Trump uses this as a precursor to do something underhanded, obstruct justice, bias an investigation, or anything else, we can talk about it.

Folks are preemptively calling something illegal or worse which it simply isn’t. I am reminded of the infamous Loretta Lynch tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton. Despite many being sure that was done with nefarious intent related to Hillary’s investigation, in the end, she had the right to do as she did, and nothing came of it. History is littered with precedents like this.


I completely agree with you here.

I don’t agree here at all. He has done great things for this country despite the non-stop character assassination attempts.


Political parties are not mentioned in the Constitution.



There has been some commentary suggesting that because Whitaker was in a job (chief of staff) that did not require Senate confirmation, he could not become the “acting officer” in a position (AG) that calls for Senate confirmation. Not so. The Vacancies Act enables the president to name an acting officer, who may serve as such for 210 days, as long as the person named has been working at the agency or department for at least 90 days in a fairly high-ranking position. Whitaker qualifies




If a Senate-confirmed position is left vacant, the [Vacancies] act outlines who can temporarily fill it and for how long. Under the act, these positions are, by default, temporarily filled by whoever is the “first assistant” to the position left vacant. But the act affords some wiggle room to the president if he decides to appoint someone else, according to Norman Eisen, the former chief ethics adviser to President Barack Obama

“The president can plug in a Senate-confirmed person to serve for a limited amount of time in any Senate-confirmed role,” Eisen said.

That means anyone who has been confirmed to any position by the Senate can temporarily fill a vacant role in any agency. So too can certain high-level bureaucrats within the agency in question – like Whitaker.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit