The headline is our question for this post.
We know that at no time, was Jeff Sessions a part of the Trump Campaign. The fact that he supported Trump from the beginning is not to say that he was part of that campaign . . . . . . and he was not. Understand that his testimony before the Senate during his confirmation hearing, was this: "I did not meet with the Russians regarding the Trump campaign." His testimony was not: "I never met with the Russians."
Secondly, during and throughout the GOP primary, Jeff Sessions was a Senator and serving on the Senate Arms Services Committee.
He had two "meetings" with Russian ambassadors. One was a simple handshake. The other was a private meeting, as a member of the Senate Arms Services Committee, in the privacy of his office.
The Dems complain that there is no paper work or notes with regard to this meeting. News flash: Notes are never taken in a meeting that does not include official negotiations. Was this meeting about "Hi, how are you and the kids" ? Sessions has said that he cannot divulge the subject matter of this meeting, indicating that it was a meeting dealing with the business of the Arms Services Committee - and, as such, classified meeting.
The call for a Special Prosecutor is more than antiquated, it is impossible. Why? Because there is no such thing as a "Special Prosecutor. The office was created in 1978 (Ethics in Government Act). The Special Prosecutor was to be a selection by a panel of the Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. this prosecutor had no budget and limitations.
The Special Prosecutor, as an independent function of the DOJ no longer exists. The congress can move to reinstate this assignment, but until it does, there is no pathway to a Special Prosecutor.
Without GOP congressional legislative intervention per the request of Chuck Schumer, there will be no Special Prosecutor.
Paul Ryan has said that if Jeff Sessions is investigated by the FBI, he should recuse himself during that time. I would agree. But the investigation should be limited to the question at hand. It should not be one that drifts about, looking for any infraction of federal law.
Personally, if we were not allowed to have a Special Prosecutor for either Barack or Hillary, we should not not entertain a Prosecutor for anyone on the GOP side of the aisle. I would argue Democrat precedent as the reason.
Finally, understand that this Democrat assault on Sessions is about taking down the President of the United States. Schumer went on the record this morning, saying "The should cannot be even of scintillia doubt about the impartiality and fairness of the Attorney General." Obviously, Schumer was kidding or pushing a lie. We know this because the two Attorneys General of the US under Obama hardly avoided this "scintilla of doubt" standard in their personal conduct as the A.G.
