[bagster]

They certainly have nothing to do with that rat bastard’s recusal or unrecusal.

They certainly provide legal cover, right?

Let's see the derps argue against unrecusal if the SCOTUS says its lawful and Constitutional.

Do you live in the real world, goodman?

p.s. I notice you aren't arguing that Sessions sent a letter TODAY to the SCOTUS regarding UNRECUSAL.

Your point seems to be that SCOTUS has no business in the matter.

Do you see?

You're flailing, EG. Its not attractive.

Bagster

[Electric Graffiti]

“I notice you aren’t arguing that Sessions sent a letter TODAY to the SCOTUS regarding UNRECUSAL.”

I doubt that. Sessions is the alleged Attorney General for Christ’s sake. Things would really grind to a halt if every move by the executive or the legislature had to be run by SCROTUS for approval before any action was taken.