Jeff Sessions might have destroyed the Trump presidency

[Judi Lynn]

Paul Waldman
December 14, 2017

You've no doubt heard of the butterfly effect, wherein the flapping of a butterfly's wings can, over the course of time, distance, and accumulated consequences, produce a tornado. In our political moment, Jeff Sessions is that butterfly.

Or more precisely, it was President Trump's decision to make Sessions his attorney general, which seemed perfectly reasonable at the time, that could well determine the entire course of his presidency and quite possibly its ignominious end.

Yet this is one of the rare cases where Trump can't be blamed for his mistake. In fact, when he appointed Sessions it was one of the rare moves he made that was exactly what a typical Republican president would do. Sessions was the first member of the Senate to endorse Trump, so the plum job was in part a reward for his loyalty. As a former federal prosecutor, state attorney general, and member of the Judiciary Committee, he was certainly qualified. While he had some, ahem, colorful history on matters of race, as a member of the Senate it might have been assumed that he'd have a relatively easy time winning confirmation from his colleagues (though in fact he wound up getting the vote of only one Democrat, West Virginia's Joe Manchin).

And perhaps most importantly, since he was from Alabama, a state Trump won by 28 points and where there is not a single Democratic statewide elected official, there seemed to be no political risk involved. The Republican governor would appoint Sessions' replacement, and then that person, or at worst a different Republican, would win the special election to serve out the rest of Sessions' term.

More:
http://theweek.com/articles/743123/jeff-sessions-might-have-destroyed-trump-presidency

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. That is one terrific article! I'm so glad you posted it.

The whole thing is very much worth reading, but this paragraph really caught my attention:

When Trump appointed Sessions, he probably assumed he was getting an attorney general who was loyal to him and would protect him, which is clearly what he wanted. Instead, he got someone who has made himself unable to do so on the scandal that most threatens his presidency.

Wonderful!

K&R

[htuttle]

2. I keep wondering about something Trump said

He said that if Sessions knew he would recuse himself from the Russia investigation, he should have turned down the job of AG.

Sessions was nominated for AG on Nov 16, 2016. That was two days before Flynn was appointed National Security Advisor.

There were rumblings about Russian hacking and such by then, but there wasn't anything like a Russia investigation yet. Why would Trump think that back then unless he expected a Russia investigation?

Just another incriminating statement of many? Or, he's just being deluded again and rewriting the past -- getting really hard to tell.

[Rollo]

3. It's a great article if you subscribe to the notion that the buck never stops at Trump's desk...

Who appointed Sessions?

Who appointed Flynn?

Who (and whose family) eagerly colluded with Russia during the campaign and after?

Sorry, but Trump doesn't get off the hook so easily by blaming Sessions for the demise of his presidency.

And the sooner, the better.

[regnaD kciN]

4. From his pen to God's ears...