Donald Trump

Trump Is Angry at Jeff Sessions for the Wrong Reasons

"I don't have an attorney general," Trump says.


Ron Sachs/CNP/AdMedia/Newscom Curtis Compton/TNS/Newscom

President Donald Trump yesterday levied perhaps his harshest attack yet on Attorney General Jeff Sessions, his one-time ally.

In an Oval Office interview with The Hill, Trump again expressed displeasure with Sessions' decision to recuse himself from the Justice Department's probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. But the president also suggested Sessions has done a bad job "at the border" and with "numerous" other things. "I don't have an attorney general. It's very sad," Trump told The Hill.

His remarks will no doubt fuel rumors that Sessions could be fired soon after the November midterm elections. Ironically, Trump is right in claiming that Sessions is a bad attorney general, through firing him because of his recusal would be the wrong move.

Trump noted that Sessions was the first senator to endorse his presidential bid, but said he couldn't see at the time that the Alabama politician was gunning for the attorney general job. After Sessions was nominated, though, Trump said the confirmation process was a tell-tale sign something was wrong.

"[T]hen he went through the nominating process and he did very poorly. I mean, he was mixed up and confused, and people that worked with him for, you know, a long time in the Senate were not nice to him, but he was giving very confusing answers," Trump said. "Answers that should have been easily answered. And that was a rough time for him."

Sessions really sparked Trump's ire in March 2017 when he recused himself from the Russia probe due to previously undisclosed conversations with a Russian ambassador in 2016. Sessions' recusal left oversight of the Russia investigation in the hands of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed special counsel Robert Mueller in May after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey.

Mueller's investigation has been a thorn in Trump's side ever since, and he clearly thinks Sessions deserves much of the blame. In a July 2017 interview with The New York Times, Trump said he wouldn't have hired Sessions had he known the attorney general was going to recuse himself. And last month, Trump told Fox & Friends that Sessions "never took control of the Justice Department."

Trump has also taken issue with what he sees as Sessions' failure to investigate the "other side," namely allegations that the Obama-era DOJ tried to get Hillary Clinton elected president. Sessions, for his part, has said the DOJ "will not be improperly influenced by political considerations."

So will Trump fire Sessions? "We'll see what happens," the president told The Hill. "A lot of people have asked me to do that. And I guess I study history, and I say I just want to leave things alone, but it was very unfair" of Sessions to recuse himself.

From a policy standpoint, it is hard to defend Sessions' record. But it's not because he's "weak," as Trump tweeted last July. Rather, as Reason's C.J. Ciaramella reported in August, Sessions is "taking law enforcement back to the 1980s" with his policies on the drug war, police oversight, sentencing, and civil asset forfeiture. He's also an immigration hardliner and an opponent of cannabis research.

Regarding his recusal from the Russia investigation, though, Sessions actually made the right call. As former Reason editor Ed Krayewski explained in May 2017, Sessions was involved in the Trump campaign, so overseeing a probe into alleged wrongdoing by that same campaign could have presented a conflict of interest.

Trump may eventually fire Sessions because he's not sufficiently loyal. But the attorney general is not supposed to blindly do the president's bidding when it comes to political matters.

Trump told The Hill that "we'll see how it goes with Jeff." There's nothing wrong with making a decision on Sessions' future based on policy. But by letting politics guide his actions, Trump is proving that he's worried more about political loyalty than he is about Sessions' actual performance. That's a bad precedent to set when it comes to the Department of Justice.

NEXT: Betsy DeVos Gets a Bum Rap on Campus Sexual Assault Rules

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I can’t wait to see what replaces Sessions. Is it too late for Christie?

    1. Yes. Do you think judge Judy available?

      1. No no. It will definitely be Judge Jeaninne Pirro.

        1. Jeff you made a fool of yourself with the Kavanaugh mom stuff. Just go away.

    2. I was thinking the first one would be Giuliani, but maybe he doesn’t want the job.

      1. Dangle that carrot in front of Cohen, see how fast he decides to stop cooperating with the DoJ.

  2. TRUMP: “Attorney General? I have no attorney general!”

    CHEECH AND CHONG: “Our wish has been granted, Sessions is gone! Let’s light a doobie and celebrate!”

    TRUMP: “I didn’t mean that literally.”

    /somewhat adapted from the Simpsons

  3. yet on Attorney General Jeff Sessions, his one-time ally.

    In an Oval Office interview with The Hill, Trump again expressed displeasure with Sessions’ decision to recuse himself from the Justice Department’s probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

    Having read up more on it — he has a right to be pissed. His FIRST DAY IN OFFICE, Sessions began the process to recuse himself. DAY ONE.

    I’d be irked as well.

    Especially since there was literally no reason for him to do so. Not according to any DoJ statutes. I mean, Lynch didn’t recuse herself in the Clinton email probe — she IMPLIED she would, but she did not — and she fucking met with Bill Clinton in a clandestine meeting.

    1. Nuh-uh, if it was clandestine how come you know about it, huh?

      1. She got caught

        1. Pfaugh – a good clandestine meeting doesn’t get discovered.

          1. Never said they were good at being clandestine, obviously not

            1. Like Bill’s clandestine meeting was a certain intern in the oval office.

              Cigar anyone?

              1. was = with

    2. As a refresher, people called for Sessions to recuse himself due to the fact that he met a Russian ambassador in his office in the Senate on a day when other senators also met with him.

      That sounds suspicious af

      1. Hell, DOJ rules do not require recusal if you meet with somebody NOT in your position as a campaign member.

        He did not.

        I did love when Democrats claimed “Well, I never met with him” — when their Twitters showed the opposite.

    3. What part of “conflict of interest” don’y you understand? Besides, Trump should have known this would happen, but as usual he was too lazy to do his homework. For a supposedly brilliant businessman, it shouldn’t really be all that hard to grok the concept of due diligence. I find it bitterly ironic that when Trump (and his cultists) attack Sessions, it’s on the occasions when the evil-minded little troll is actually showing some integrity. But, hey, what should I expect, it’s not like Trump would recognize integrity if it bit him in the ass.

      1. If Lynch didn’t recuse herself during the email probe, then Session shouldn’t have recused himself from this. Duh.

        You lefties hate it so much when your tactics are used against you. Such delicious tears.

  4. Regarding his recusal from the Russia investigation, though, Sessions actually made the right call.

    I remember the good ol’ days when Reason colluded and collaborated with Putin’s henchwoman on Russia Today

  5. Almost makes me feel sorry for Sessions.

    1. Why? you play stupid games you get stupid prizes. He’s an asshole who decided to throw in with a guy whose claim to fame is firing people.

      1. You almost had it there.

    2. If you can find him let me know so I can also express my sorrow.

  6. “I don’t have an attorney general. It’s very sad,”

    Now this statement has much more claim to truth than anything the Ford woman has said.

    Is Sessions alive and at work? I need corroborating evidence.

    1. the Ford woman

      I love it when conservatives and Republicans speak about women, gays, blacks, Jews, immigrants, Muslims, and just about anyone who isn’t straight, male, white, and stale.

      Mostly because I want the Republican Party to continue to be branded with bigotry and backwardness for a generation or two, so that my preferences (reason, tolerance, science, inclusivity, liberty, education) can continue to shape the progress that makes America great.

      It is inexplicable that right-wingers continue to express their diffuse intolerance voluntarily and publicly, but having stupid people on the other side of politics is generally good.

      1. Yeah, because it’s team red who panders for the special interest votes…kinda like when Hilary came out as being pro-gay marriage about 87 seconds before the SCOTUS ruling.

      2. The dark cloud of the War Against Women is forever hovering over Republicans but usually manages to land on Progressives and Democrats.

        Bernie Sanders has ‘nothing’ to say about Keith Ellison’s domestic abuse allegations

        Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has “nothing” to say about domestic abuse allegations against one of his closest political allies, Minnesota Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison.

        Ellison, the deputy chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), is accused of physically and emotionally abusing his ex-girlfriend, Sierra Club activist Karen Monahan.

        “Nope, nothing. You’ll excuse me, I’ve got to get going,” Sanders told The Washington Post on Thursday when asked if he has anything to say about the Ellison allegations.

        Ellison won the party’s nomination for Minnesota attorney general Tuesday despite Monahan’s allegations, which he has repeatedly denied. Sanders campaigned for Ellison in Minnesota in July.

        Democratic Sens. Kamala Harris of California and Claire McCaskill of Missouri were similarly noncommittal when the Post asked about the Ellison allegations Thursday.

      3. Are you fucking retarded or something? Oh wait yea you are. Her last name is Ford and she is a woman. What should I call her.

      4. Are you fucking retarded or something? Oh wait yea you are. Her last name is Ford and she is a woman. What should I call her.

  7. >>Sessions actually made the right call

    a. no
    b. next lesson is to learn to write all future sentences w/o “actually”

    1. Uh, yes — Sessions recognized that he would be a likely witness as part of the investigation. Recusal is absolutely the correct approach in that situation.

      1. >>>a likely witness

        to nothing?

      2. Except he was never going to be.

        Now, you know who IS incredibly conflicted?

        Robert Mueller, whose friend and protege got fired. Who interviewed for that job the day before being named prosecutor, meaning he likely heard Trump’s reasons for the firing. Rosenstein is ALSO incredibly conflicted.

        Sessions is the LEAST conflicted guy there.

        1. There’s a simpler formula here. If it hurts the left, it helps liberty. If it helps the left, it hurts liberty. If this simple calculus was injected into all of our political discourse, that would go a long way towards making America great again.

  8. Trump is proving that he’s worried more about political loyalty than he is about Sessions’ actual performance. That’s a bad precedent to set when it comes to the Department of Justice.

    Oh, that horse left the barn long ago. And no reasonable prosecutor would bring it back.

    1. Basically Trump is behaving like every other President in history. The horror.

      1. That’s pretty fucking scary to me.

        1. I thought he was different, he’s not a politician or a Washington insider, and that he’s supposed to drain the swamp?

      2. No he isn’t. He’s behaving like every President in history *should* have behaved, and that is why he’s making America great again.

  9. Whatever may be Session’s strengths of character and/or weaknesses of judgment, the cancerous history at the core of the DOJ is this: Manafort, Flynn, Papadopolous, and Carter Page have been exceedingly, thoroughly, one might even say brutally investigated and forced to plead guilty to various offenses.

    On the other hand, Hillary Clinton and her associates were never given anything but a pro-forma investigation of the shallowest and most superficial nature that could possibly be conducted. In many cases, her associates were readily promised immunity and none of them ever had to face Andrew Weisman’s notorious hard-ball tactics for sweating and breaking a person being interviewed.

    Further, we know exactly the reason for this two-tier system of justice when it came to the Democrat and Republican candidates and their campaign allies in 2016. We know why one party was targeted for wire-tap snooping, warrants, and extreme investigation, and the other party given a gentle pat on the head, exonerated, and two blind eyes turned on every possible Democrat financial collusion instance with Russian entities (which were and remain, legion.)

    There is a cancer in our government. It consists of Rosenstein, Mueller, Comey, Strzok, McCabe. et al. The Deep State was a real, metastasizing monster eating our democracy and the rule of law.

    1. “I was operating in a world where Hillary Clinton was going to beat Donald Trump, and so I’m sure that it was a factor.”

      — James Comey

  10. I get his personality type, but I don’t understand why someone can’t simply explain to him that the attorney general is not his personal lawyer. How hard is this? Why not make a random 8th grader president for whom at least basic civics would be fresh in mind?

    1. It’s funny you’d mention 8th grade civics, because that’s where the theory of how governments work comes from. And if you’re a grown-ass adult that still believes that horseshit, you’ve got the mentality of an eighth-grader and shouldn’t be trusted to eat with a fork. As long as I’ve been alive, going back to when JFK appointed his brother as AG, it is in fact the AG’s role to protect the President from legal problems. The AG is not “the nation’s top law enforcement official”, he’s the President’s fixer, the one charged with coming up with a 48-page legal memorandum that boils down to “When the President does it, it means it’s not illegal”, excusing and justifying any damn thing the President wants to do or already did that somehow became public knowledge. John Mitchell, Ed Meese, Janet Reno, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch – you think any of these people got to be AG for their fine legal minds as opposed to their willingness to bury bodies for the President?

      1. Are you arguing that Sessions should do this for Trump as well? I’d take this opportunity as a respite from your cynicism and an opportunity to actually praise a Republican for having integrity. The fact that it’s Jeff “unreconstructed klansman” Sessions could even be some kind of bonus, depending.

        1. Sessions is the type of super secret Klansman that prosecuted the Klan when he was attorney general of Alabama. It’s 32 dimensional chess that he’s playing

    2. I don’t understand why someone can’t simply explain to him that the attorney general is not his personal lawyer.

      Many of the people surrounding Trump are inept yahoos or clumsy bigots who have a hard time with the concept themselves, and the others near him are aware that this is their (and their movement’s) unexpected, sole, final, fleeting opportunity to have a hand on the levers of American government, so they’re not going to upset Trump by interfering with his delusions.

      1. People with 8th grade educations and backwoods ignorant superstitions that pass for political views should not be calling anyone a yahoo. Know your limitations there doofus.

  11. It’s horrifying to think that Trump might start firing people in his administration who don’t support his agenda and are actively trying to undermine him. Jesus, will nobody stand up to Trump and tell him he has no authority to direct the executive branch to do what he wants them to do but instead has a moral obligation to support the Democrat’s agenda? How damn divisive is it of Trump to do what the Republicans want him to do and just ignore the Democrats? It’s literally the end of democracy if Trump favors the agenda of his supporters over the agenda of his opponents. Sad! Not to mention appalling, dangerous and unprecedented.

    1. Hey Jerry, let’s let the executive consider itself completely above the control of and accountability to elected officials. What could possibly go wrong?

      1. Exactly! Trump is accountable to the executive branch and to Hillary Clinton, who the hell does he think he is thinking he can just go firing people who are actively opposing his agenda?

    2. If the president’s agenda is contrary to existing laws, regulations, and court decisions, then yes, people in his administration should not support his agenda and refuse to perform illegal acts until such time as the president actually gets the relevant laws, regulations, and court decisions changed to conform to his agenda.

      1. Yes, the executive should not perform illegal acts even if ordered to do so. That is true but not relevant here since Trump hasn’t ordered anyone to do anything illegal. There is nothing illegal about declassifying documents assuming you have the power to do so, which the President does.

      2. >>> agenda is contrary to existing laws, regulations, and court decisions


      3. Does this include torture or running guns to Mexican drug cartels, or just existing laws you don’t like?

        1. And assassinating American citizens?

      4. Does that include sending billions of dollars to insurance companies with zero statutory backing and court cases saying doing so is in fact illegal?

        Does that include sending billions of dollars to countries hostile to American interests with no treaty obligations to do so?

        How about simply writing off billions of dollars in taxes owed outside all legal and contractual requirements?

        Lets ignore the billions in politically motivated giveaways because lets be honest, every politician does that one.

  12. I think it is fair to say that the President can’t wake up one day and tell the AG “go get that bastard”. But absent telling DOJ in so many words what cases to pursue and who to investigate not investigate and having them do so for the political benefit of the President, the President is the chief executive of the government and can tell DOJ to do whatever he wants them to do. If the President cannot do that, then no one can and DOJ becomes a rogue national law enforcement agency that is no longer accountable to the public that created it and pays its bills.

    It is incredibly short-sighted and stupid to allow your dislike of a particular President to cause you to lose sight of the importance of law enforcement being accountable and controlled by the public through elected officials. You may not like Trump running DOJ, but tough shit. The alternative is no one running DOJ and that is not something anyone should want.

    1. “go get that bastard”

      The DOJ’s job is to get the bastards assuming bastard = breaking the law.

      So he’s telling them do their job. There is a lot evidence of bastards running free.

    2. Actually, he very much can say “Go investigate that fucker!” and it sticks.

      1. In most cases yes. But I don’t think he could do that for the purpose of harassing and intimidating his political enemies. He would have to have a legitimate reason for ordering the investigation.

    3. Absolutely, right John. When President CLINTON was being impeached I foolishly said incredible whoppers like “this is a system of laws, not of men”, but since then i’ve Come around to your position “this is a system of protecting craven liars and idiots, not of laws” The DOJ’s job isn’t to investigate a sitting President who has been credibly charged as colluding with an enemy power, it’s to investigate Hitlery’s emails and Benghazi. I mean, WTF, right?

      1. Can’t you just troll Julie Borowski instead? Did she block you or something?

      2. The executive being accountable to elected officials and ultimately the public is the rule of law you fucking moron. Rule of man is the bureaucracy deciding elections don’t matter and they not the public set policy.

        You literally have it exactly backward. Go troll somewhere else where people might be dumb enough to believe you.

        1. John, it pains me to see that you think I think you’re a nasty partisan hack that would be jumping up and down flapping his arms around and chanting “looloolooloo” if Black Socialist Kenyan Obama had instructed the DOJ to ignore allegations of his misconduct, WHICH HE TOTALLY DID WHEN HE TOLD THE IRS TO GO AFTER THE TEE PARTY. I mean, I read your measured comments about Lois Lerner back then and I can only tell you how impressed I am about how you apply the same diligent standards to misconduct by elected officials of each party. You have more integrity than Abe Lincoln, but probably not as much as President Trump, who has more integrity than you or Abe Lincoln? probably combined.

          1. What you are saying makes absolutely no sense. Unless you are willing to admit that Lois Lerner was acting on orders from Obama, she is a perfect example of a rogue bureaucrat and my criticism of her is exactly consistent with my criticism of this. The bureaucracy is accountable to the people via the President. They don’t get to decide policy. Elected officials do that.

            I understand you are just on here to troll. But you appear to be profoundly stupid such that you are incapable of making even an untruthful coherent argument. Stop wasting everyone’s time. you are not convincing anyone of anything except how stupid you are and how this account is another sock puppet for Hihn or stack or one of the other resident leftist retards.

  13. Would it be a 25th Amendment thing if Trump ordered Sessions to wear an elf hat during public appearances?

  14. God, Trump is so fucking insufferable. I wish he could learn to keep his fucking big mouth shut, but my dog has a better shot at learning brain surgery than Trump does at learning anything.

    1. Melania seems to find him sufferable.

      That’s the plus side of marrying an ambitious, disingenuous, half-educated, credulous younger “model” with sketchy immigration issues and a focus on arranging citizenship for herself and for her parents.

      1. Rev, you’re damn near as insufferable as he is. The pot and kettle thing applies here.

      2. Weird anti-immigrant attack on Melania there.

        1. That fucking sock, OBL, will probably be around any minute now to get all SJW on him any minute. What a dick!

          1. At least OBL knows how to stay in character.

      3. Kirkland’s sentiments on women are fairly typical for Dems and progressives.

        Top Liberal Think Tank and Clinton Adviser Accused of Sheltering Sexual Harassers and Retaliating Against Victims

        Leading liberal think tank, the Center for American Progress (CAP), stands accused of sheltering sexual harassers and operating a toxic culture that made victims fear retaliation for speaking out.

        A heavily-reported expos? by Buzzfeed News on Tuesday documented those allegations?made by 19 former and current employees and staffers with the organization.

        One former union member singled out CAP’s president Neera Tanden… Tanden is a high-profile Twitter user, staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton and the former secretary of state’s longtime advisor.

  15. Should we expect any shred of evidence on this Russia investigation or should righteous feels suffice?

    It’s amazing how people who blindly abide by fever dreams and Kavanaugh trutherism are totally not just progressives, but those who point out that they have no evidence to support either accusation are totally Republicans.

    1. It’s hard not to conclude that Reason is basically a conservative publication that is more concerned with clinging to status quo opinions and preserving institutions than logic or facts

    2. Have you noticed that when Trump makes a claim that the mainstream media do not approve of, when or if they comment on his statement they will append the phrase “without evidence.”

      The usual form is “Today Trump claimed blah, blah, blah WITHOUT EVIDENCE.”

      However, they never use that phrase talking about any outrageous statement from a Democrat, or from a #me too accuser. Isn’t that funny?

      In fact, it is a tell (poker term) that the media source is Fake News through and through.

      1. Not necessarily. Trump lies a lot. What people refuse to acknowledge is that his opponents in the media also lie a lot. There is still not evidence to support the Russia fever dreams that we were assured were totally legitimate.

  16. Boy, this President runs a well lubed ship! I’m simply amazed at the wisdom of the American voter every day. MAGA, everyone!

    1. Cathy, this parody really sucks. You could do so much better with this parody. You put zero effort into this and that’s not OK. Do better

      1. Ma’am, i’ll Have you know that I spent 6.3 hours figuring out how to get the syntax just right on how I could express my luv for President Trump. He simply is the greatest President since Abraham Lincoln just like he said he was. Parody? Pshaw, I think not!

      2. I think it’s probably AmSoc/Buttplug. He appeared after Buttplug got banned again, and they tend to not post in tandem. Also, their writing is both at a fairly similar level.

        1. No, it’s Cathy. Amsoc/Buttplug is not smart enough to do a parody.

          1. I think its Hihn. This guy has the telltale mark of irrationality and insanity that you only find in Hihn. Cathy is just a garden variety moron.

        2. Buttplug got banned? What for?

    2. That’s why Trump is getting a lot of things done.

      1. Oh, I agree. As a libertarian and Trump supporter i’m Proud of the progress President Trump has made on building a border wall on the Mexican border, which is central to the concept of free minds and markets. I mean, if President Trump isn’t not not a craven bullshit liar then I don’t know what he is, really.

  17. In a July 2017 interview with The New York Times, Trump said he wouldn’t have hired Sessions had he known the attorney general was going to recuse himself.

    That comment says more about the vetting used by Trump and his staff on nominees than about Sessions himself. If they had done their homework properly they should have known Sessions had issues that would have required recusal if he failed to be less than truth at his Senate hearings.

    Of course it also says something about Sessions himself that he chose NOT be fully forthcoming to the Senate–and the Senate’s own vetting process. A failure to be full forthcoming at Senate confirmation hearings ought to constitute grounds for impeachment. (Not that that is likely to happen anytime soon no matter which side occupies the Oval Office.)

    1. As a refresher, people called for Sessions to recuse himself due to the fact that he met a Russian ambassador in his office in the Senate on a day when other senators also met with him.

      That sounds suspicious af

      1. There really was no good reason for him to recuse himself other than the fact that the media and Democrats (but I repeat myself) were pushing a intelligence community conspiracy theory that has largely fizzled out now.

        1. You think it’s fizzled out because… Jeanine Pirro isn’t talking about it on her show? Because you personally speak to Bob Mueller and know something the rest of the world doesn’t?

          1. Pretty sure it’s fizzled out, because literally no one has been charged with anything even remotely related to Russia fever dreams. Sorry, that the facts are so inconvenient for you

            1. Also, there’s the fact that the talking point from you has morphed from “Literally Putin’s Puppet” to “Literally a Campaign Violation”.

            2. You should watch the documentary Active Measures

              1. Thanks for the heads-up, Alex Jones

            3. Nobody’s been charged?

    2. Maybe Trump should have been intelligent enough to realize that a person who worked on his campaign can’t oversee an investigation of his campaign. But who are we kidding.

      1. He never worked on the campaign. He endorsed him.

        I want to live in your world where my opinions are more important than the facts

        1. Geez dude, for your own sake please educate yourself on the facts. Sessions was very much part of the Trump campaign.

          1. “Sessions was an early supporter of the presidential candidacy of Donald Trump, and was a major policy adviser to the Trump campaign, especially in regard to immigration and national security.[60] He was also on the short list to become Trump’s running mate, a position that ultimately went to Mike Pence.”

            Right on Wikipedia. He was a major policy advisor to the Trump campaign. Facts are our friends.

            1. Well thank God for Wikipedia.

              Hey, here’s a good question about facts: what is being alleged with the Russia fever dreams and what has come to light to justify them?

              Faith alone?

              1. Better question: What does his being on the campaign have to do with anything?

                I would say it would prove he’s an upstanding fellow, but his cowardice would seem to indicate otherwise.

  18. Trump Is Angry at Jeff Sessions for the Wrong Reasons

    Nice little dishonest title to get us to read the article.

  19. Sessions, for his part, has said the DOJ “will not be improperly influenced by political considerations.”

    “Due diligence allows us to only be properly influenced by political considerations.”

  20. [John, above] But absent telling DOJ in so many words what cases to pursue and who to investigate not investigate and having them do so for the political benefit of the President, the President is the chief executive of the government and can tell DOJ to do whatever he wants them to do

    God, the level of bitter anti-Trump parody around here has reached a new low. Get some new material, you TDS lib.

  21. OT but very important: I want my Neanderthal reparations and sovereign lands!!!!!!

    1. Did you mean to post a link, or is this a completely out of the blue mocking of the reservation system?

      1. Just a Neanderthal living in a homo world trying to find my roots and stand up for my people.

  22. God who really cares about this kind of inside baseball nonsense?

    1. No one. Meanwhile, the FBI and DOJ have declared themselves accountable to no one and essential secret police forces enforcing the will of the bureaucracy the wishes of the public or its elected officials be damned. And Reason has absolutely nothing to say about that. I guess they don’t think having a federal police force and prosecutors totally beyond the public’s oversight has no implications for freedom or something.

      1. Nothing has changed about the FBI and DOJ John. You just don’t like where this is headed because your Team is in the shithouse.

        1. A lot has changed you half wit. The FBI has never refused lawful orders by the President or refused to release declassified information when ordered to do so. You are just a moron and have no idea what is going on.

      2. Reason needs to give up this fantasy that the left and right are somehow both friends and enemies to liberty (yeah that’s not a paradox at all).


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.