Replies

“You are misrepresenting my point. I’m simply tired of the Attorney General of the United States not protecting the US Constitution by refusing to go after those that have attempted to overthrown a duly elected president. Period.”

Just to clarify, what specifically would a replacement AG need to accomplish in say the first six months for you to be satisfied that he was protecting the Constitution? You said “by going after those that have attempted to overthrow a duly elected President.” So, who would have to be on that list, and what would have to happen to them for you to consider the AG was doing his job”

I guess I’m looking for a specific benchmark by which you would measure a replacement AG, because this may actually happen.

Let’s say your list of those who attempted the coup includes Strozk, Page, McCabe, Comey, Clinton, Rice, Lynch, Holder, Rosenstein, Mueller, Brenner, maybe even Obama himself. Let’s say you’d be satisfied with at least half of them being indicted and any currently employed being fired. Would indictments be enough or would a significant number have to serve time?

The reason I ask for specific benchmark is that I suspect it’s not Sessions’ recusal that has kept this from happening but rather that Trump himself doesn’t intend to pursue criminal charges.

I suspect Sessions won’t be AG forever - department heads come and go. So when Trump has an opportunity to appoint a new AG, I expect it will be more of the same - I’d like to know what you expect from the new AG, specifically.

You’re right that it’s not important who was right or wrong, but this debate has been raging for the best part of a year here on FR, and when it’s all said and done I’d like to learn from the experience.

A lot of people seem to believe that all sorts of high level people would be in jail by now if it wasn’t for Jeff Sessions’ recusals and refusals. I’d like to hear specifics so that if we ever do get a different AG, I know what your expectations are.