Is Trump sticking a fork in Sessions?



“President Donald Trump told The New York Times in an interview Wednesday that he never would have appointed Jeff Sessions as attorney general had he known Sessions would recuse himself from overseeing the Russia investigation.”  []


Trump doesn’t seemed bothered by Putin’s aggressions;

And has a blind spot  about Russian repressions.

It could be kompromat*

That  the Russians have got

And why under the bus Trump threw Sessions.

*compromising material




Leave a comment
  • This is similar to the point on why he couldn't get big name outside counsel--Trump wants lawyers who would violate legal ethics. However, Trump is still not up for pulling a Saturday Night Massacre. Firing Comey was enough of a problem, especially when he threw Rosenstein under WMATA Metrobus #2837.

    Sessions, though is sort of like in the ISIS position of when nobody likes you, you are in trouble. I don't think Orange Face is bringing back Loretta Lynch, though.

  • In reply to jack:

    Maybe as I suggested in my last sentence: BREAKING NEWS (as the Milo troll put it) There may be cause to have Sessions impeached. Now we know what Trump meant about surveillance.

  • I know Trump mentioned his displeasure at Sessions for recusing himself from the Russian probe. But maybe he was also upset with Sessions for reviving yesterday a widely criticized practice that allows state and local law enforcement officials to use federal law to seize the cash, cars or other personal property of people suspected of crimes but not charged. He may be concerned that Governor Cuomo or Mayor de Blasio will start seizing and forfeiting Trump family trinkets.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    That seems waaay to distant for Orange Face to comprehend, although I suppose that his remarks re Muller investigating sonny boys could eventually get one there. He'd then have to admit that Donny was engaged in drug trade, where most of the forfeitures are made.

    Given that the constitutionality of forfeitures has been upheld,. Sessions wouldn't have any effect on Eric Schneiderman (N.Y. Attorney General, who with various district attorneys are the only ones with authority in that respect), who isn't affected by any other Trump threat, such as with regard to various bogus Trump Foundations.

  • In reply to jack:

    State attorneys general have no effect on Federal Civil Forfeiture under 18 USC 981. Where state or local police execute the seizure on behalf of the U.S., the U.S. Attorney General can transfer the seized property to "any local law enforcement agency which participates directly in" the seizure. That is what local departments like so much about federal forfeiture; the state has no control over the money and goodies they get from the feds.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    But that's irrelevant to whether state authorities can bring actions under state law. CPLR 1311 is still there if Schneiderman wants to use it.

  • In reply to jack:

    Of course. I guess I thought we were talking about Sessions.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    We were until you brought up "He may be concerned that Governor Cuomo or Mayor de Blasio will start seizing and forfeiting Trump family trinkets," which would be irrelevant to 18 USC 981(e)(2), as the seizure has to be at the behest of the Atty. Gen., Sec. of Treasury, or Postal Service (subsec. (b)(1)), not Cuomo or de Blasio.

  • In reply to jack:

    Yes, but the governor and mayor may be very persuasive in encouraging state and local police to enforce federal forfeiture laws, especially where the police will profit from the enforcement.

    As for your argument under (b)(1) that seizure must be at the "behest" of the AG or another cabinet official, they have powers to delegate. Also, look at (b)(2)(C) saying that a warrant isn't even necessary where "the property was lawfully seized by a State or local law enforcement agency and transferred to a Federal agency."

    Many will pay the price of this return to expanded powers to confiscate money and property. I can only hope that the Trump
    clan will be among those.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    Assuming that Donnie has contraband that vuiolates state law, which is very tenous, it is even more tenuous that anyone in NYS government would encourage local police to turn it over to the feds, knowing that Sessions won't prosecute him. Thus, you have essentially argued your original point that Trump thought of it into ludicrousness.Trump may be nuts, but he was clearly talking about Mueller's investigation, and it resulting from Sessions recusing himself.

  • You still miss the point. Local police can seize goods under federal law and turn it over to the feds. The seizure can be sustained if there is "probable cause or reasonable belief." A criminal prosecution is not necessary. Sessions may or may not intervene to prevent civil forfeiture complaints from being filed. Or he may intervene in some cases but not others.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    I fully comprehended the point you made 7 hours and 40 minutes ago, but as the further discussion amply demonstrates, it isn't worthy of further comment.

Leave a comment