MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Remember When Lindsey Graham Warned, 'If Jeff Sessions Is Fired, There Will Be Holy Hell to Pay'?

In the space of a year, Graham went from Trump critic, warning about impeachment, to Trump backer, taking the president's side on Jeff Sessions.

MICHAEL REYNOLDS/CNP/AdMedia/NewscomMICHAEL REYNOLDS/CNP/AdMedia/NewscomTo understand how fully Trump has taken over the Republican party, and how remarkable the president's decision to request the resignation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions is, consider Sen. Lindsey Graham (R–SC).

Back in the far more innocent time of summer 2017, when President Trump was still relatively new in his job, and his relationship with much of the Republican party was still rocky, Graham delivered a stern warning about what would happen should Trump fire Attorney General Jeff Sessions or interfere with the Mueller investigation. "If Jeff Sessions is fired, there will be holy hell to pay," he said. "Any effort to go after Mueller could be the beginning of the end of the Trump presidency."

Strictly speaking, Trump did not fire Jeff Sessions. But earlier today, he asked for, and received, Sessions' resignation, installing Matthew Whitaker as acting attorney general. Whitaker, notably, has been a critic of the Mueller probe, writing last year that if Mueller were to broaden the scope of the investigation into Trump family finances, it would constitute a "witch hunt"—the same language that Trump often uses to deride the probe. Whitaker is now in charge of overseeing that probe, taking over for Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who had assumed the oversight role after Sessions recused himself. (Trump has repeatedly insulted Sessions in public, and reportedly complains frequently about the recusal.)

You might think that Graham would be hopping mad about this state of affairs. He's not. In recent months, Graham has changed his tune on Sessions, predicting he would step down after the midterms, and suggesting this week that we would have a new attorney general by early 2019.

Graham's flip-flop is illustrative. When the senator issued his warning last year, Trump was still an unknown quantity, on the outs with much of the Republican establishment. Graham, meanwhile, was a vocal critic. Today, the Republican party is the party of Trump in nearly every way, and Graham has warmed up to the president. There will be no hell to pay, no threat to Trump's presidency, because Graham has come around. He has taken Trump's side.

Nor is Graham the only Republican to soften a critical stance towards the president. In 2016, Mitt Romney declared that if "Republicans choose Donald Trump as our nominee, the prospect for a safe and prosperous future are greatly diminished." Yet during his successful Senate campaign this year, he happily accepted Trump's endorsement. Meanwhile, GOP lawmakers who did not or could not back off their criticisms of Trump, like Mark Sanford and Jeff Flake, have lost and left their seats.

These are just a few of the signs of how thoroughly Trump has taken over the GOP, and how little pushback he's likely to receive from Republicans, even for acts that those same GOP lawmakers would have deemed unacceptable, and perhaps worthy of impeachment, a little more than a year ago (and certainly if they'd been carried out by President Obama). The party's total embrace of Trump and his approach to politics has been both rapid and remarkable.

Earlier today, I wrote that the midterm election was surprisingly normal, in that it both went roughly as expected and revolved around familiar domestic policy disputes like health care, education, and the economy. Trump's decision to ask for Sessions' resignation, and his installation of a known skeptic of the Russia probe—all but announcing that he pushed Sessions out because of the Mueller investigation—are reminders of all the ways that the president and the party he leads are anything but normal, and are unlikely to return to normalcy anytime soon.

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Strong horse.

  • Bronze Khopesh||

    Cool, a third Sessions track (ft Lindsey Graham)!

  • Wizard with a Woodchipper||

    I suspect McCain was putting estrogen in Lindsay's mint julip.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Lindsay's special ingredient is semen.

  • Juice||

  • OverWandersTelcon-tarian||

    Oh, so that's why Trump tried to make friends with Macron. I mean, where else is a would-be god going to get himself some raining frogs nowadays?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Mr. Whitaker said at a forum for Republican candidates that if elected, he would ask judicial nominees whether they were "people of faith" who had "a biblical view of justice."

    Republicans seem determined to ride that Goober Train all down the line to to the terminus station, Lower Jesusland.

    Carry on, clingers. So far as your betters permit, at least.

  • Vaelyn||

    Rev, for a guy who (I assume) believes in peace, you make a lot of threats.

  • TLBD||

    Why would you assume that?

    He consistently displays sociopathic tendencies.

    If anyone should be on a watch list, it is Kirkland.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Woe the man using Lindsey Graham as his bellwether.

  • John||

    Pretty much all of Trump's Republican critics in the Senate are gone and replaced by solid Trump supporters. And the Republicans now have a larger majority meaning that Murkowsky and Collins can no longer hold them hostage.

    Graham just knows which way the wind blows.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Perhaps the remaining sane, reasoning, tolerant Republicans will abandon the bigots and stale-thinking yahoos and switch to the Democratic Party.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    NPC Hicklib bringing his pre-programmed bullet point poasting.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Irony: you calling people bigots, right after stating those who you disagree with are inferior in your eyesight.

  • Presskh||

    Rev, you mean switch and join the Dems who all hated illegal immigration before they suddenly loved it? Those Dems?

  • Jerryskids||

    Agreed - Miss Lindsey sashaying over to the other side of the ballroom says less about Trump than it does Miss Lindsey. And all the rest of the GOP shuffles right along behind grinning like shit-eating dogs. Not a principle nor a testicle among the lot of them.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Take it from this South Carolinian: Lindsey always plays the conservative when he thinks the voters back home are watching, then reverts to type when he thinks it's safe.

    Just keep watching, Senator Gramnesty will be back soon.

  • Wizard4169||

    So glad I gave up on the GOP years ago. It's gotta be pretty humiliating standing there and doing nothing as your entire party gets grabbed by the pussy.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    If people dont see the 'n'th D chess being played out here, I dont know what to tell thm.

  • Wizard4169||

    "n'th D chess"? My ass. Trump is playing pigeon chess: if you don't like the way the game is going, knock over the pieces, crap on the board and then strut around like you won.

  • Bubba Jones||

    I thought Reason didn't like Sessions.

  • Tony||

    Nobody likes Sessions. But sentient beings are capable of not liking Sessions while simultaneously not liking that the president of the United States is attempting to quash the serious investigation into him by firing Sessions.

  • TuIpa||

    "But sentient beings"

    Ok, but why are you doing it?

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    He's not. He just repeats words he hears. You don't think parrots understand the noises they mimic, do you?

  • John||

    Is a "serious investigation" like a "credible alligation" as in something that you want to believe and therefore must be true?

    Trump fired Sessions, will replace him with a loyalist who will then fire Rosenstein and Mueller. And there is nothing you can do about it.

  • Tony||

    And somehow you're OK with that level of blatant corruption at the highest levels of the most powerful government on earth.

    Set your hair on fire over someone attributing Benghazi to a video some more, why don't you.

  • John||

    Since Rosenstein and Mueller are both corrupt and have covered up what appears to be one of the worst abuses of federal power since Watergate, I am fine with him firing him. The FBI lying to the FISA court and spying on a Presidential campaign is a big deal and they need to be held accountable for it. You think it is okay because there is literally no amount of corruption that you would not support as long as Democrats are doing it. I am a bit more hard nosed about it.

  • Moo Cow||

    Hahahaaaaaahaha! Such a toady! Good job.

  • John||

    Shut up Hihn. They banned you for a reason.

  • BigT||

    "Rosenstein and Mueller are both corrupt "

    Maybe. Let's see what Mueller reports. I would agree that if he is spending time investigating Trump's finances he should be fired immediately and potentially charged himself.

  • Ogre||

    Mueller let 4 innocent men take the rap for whitey bulger, and even after the dust settled, refused to make things right, and tried to -keep- those dudes in jail. because reasons.

    Mueller's incompetance in investigation into the 9/11 anthrax letters resulted in a multi million dollar payout to Steven Hatfill, and Mueller, not content in costing the FBI(sorry, the taxpayers) millions, then hounded Bruce Ivins to his death.

    Mueller has the reverse midas touch. Everything he touches, he turns to shit.

    Meuller's investigation so far has been about as 'watertight' as a storm drain. He's been at this for two years. If he had -anything at all-, someone would have leaked it to the press by now.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Don't forget he was head of the FBI when they prosecuted Ted Stevens. A porosecutiin later overturned and labelled the worst example of prosecutorial misconduct the judge had ever scene. It was so bad Holder intervened on Stevens behalf.

  • Nardz||

    And Whitey Bulger was recently murdered after a suspicious transfer from secure custody to the most dangerous federal lockup in the country, where he was housed in the general population.
    The same Whitey Bulger who worked in partnership with Mueller's FBI office to take over the Boston organized crime scene.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    ^THIS

    But don't forget about Mueller's botched job in prosecuting white collar and political criminals in the BCCI case. Mueller ran the Criminal Division at Main Justice at the time and took personal charge of the BCCI case. Back in July 2001, before 9/11, the WSJ concluded that "it would be a mistake to appoint as FBI head anyone who had any role in the failed BCCI probe."

    And, don't forget about Virtual Case File fiasco, the $170 million squandered on the FBI's failed and abandoned software project under Mueller's tenure at FBI.

    The guy has a quarter century of reverse Midas touch.

    Or

  • Joe M||

    Get a room, you two.

  • Wizard4169||

    I have a new name for Trump supporters: Banana Republicans. After all, Trump wants to run the country like some third-world strong man, and they actually seem to be okay with this. He's "strong" and "tough", so we should all fall in line.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Are these the same people who will be horrified to discover Pence will be president when Trump is impeached?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    No Democrat should vote to convict Trump -- impeach, sure, to drive him crazy -- without substantial concessions. Let this vulgar, vainglorious boor brand the Republican Party with bigotry, backwardness, and superstition among America's young, educated, and successful voters for a generation or two.

  • Here for the outrage||

    "among America's young, educated, and successful voters"

    You mean the purple haired shrews who cry when you call them a girl instead of zir? Or the sociology majors making me starbucks while crying about capitalism? Or the self hating upper middle class white people doped up on antidepressants?

    Glad you admit there's nothing to convict or impeach him on, beyond him being a boor

  • Kazinski||

    "serious investigation"?

    No crime has even been alleged regarding Trump or his campaign or transition as far as I know. We shouldn't have prosecutors launching investigations unless a crime is alleged.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    That would require a serious investigation, rather than one grounded in a work of fiction generated for campaign purposes, and taken "seriously" only because the FBI was tasked with taking down an elected President.

    I'm hoping the new Senate means that McConnell will stop slow walking Trump's nominees, and he can finally replace the Obama administration hold-overs.

  • Ecoli||

    Tony, this investigation has been ongoing for two years with no result. If it is "serious" then show some Trump collusion with the Russians, Democratic collusion has been shown though it appears that was good collusion.

    Shit or get off the pot.

  • Just Say'n||

    No. Orange man bad.

  • Wizard4169||

    I don't like the evil-minded little troll either, and under other circumstances I'd be delighted to see him go. But as much as I despise Sessions, he turned out to have more integrity than I would have expected. He basically got fired for not being enough of a partisan hack. I suspect his replacement will be more willing to carry Trump's water, and I don't see that going anywhere good.

  • John||

    Meanwhile, Jarad Nadler pledges that the Democrats are going full retard now that they control the House. They are going to impeach not just Trump for his collusion with the evil Ruskies but Kavanaugh as well. No half measures here. The situation calls for someone to engage in a completely pointless and stupid act. And Nadler is just the man to do it.

    http://thefederalist.com/2018/.....r-perjury/

  • Pro Libertate||

    With that low margin in the House? And with that increased Senate advantage? I guess we'll really see how crazy and politically foolish the Democrats are if they act nuts. Honestly, the smart play would be to appear extra sane versus Trump.

  • Bronze Khopesh||

    They're not capable of that.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Acknowledged.

  • John||

    The way to beat Trump is to kill him kindness. That would totally disarm him. But the Democrats are incapable of that. They just can't help themselves. It is really remarkable when you think about it. They completely lack any sense or self control.

  • Pro Libertate||

    They should spend two years pretending to be budget hawks.

  • John||

    No one wants that. I mean literally no one on either side wants that.

  • Pro Libertate||

    It wouldn't actually happen, which is why it's the smart move.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The way to beat Trump is to kill him kindness.

    Democrats just beat the House majority out of Trump by calling him a vulgar, unhinged, bigoted boor.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    And lost seats in the Senate, which supposedly isn't the "gerrymandered" portion of the bicameral legislature. Way to self-own again, you dumb hayseed.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Both Obama and Clinton list more seats their first midterm. And both lost seats in the Senate. In fact, Trump's losses in local and House elections still don't even get the Democrats even close to where they were before 2010. And the losses in the Senate put them 11 fewer seats, 13 if McSally holds on to Arizona and the GOP wins the runoff in Mississippi.

  • DaveT1000||

    That's how to win Democratic primaries and raise more money from the base.

    If you look at the marginal seats that the Democrats won in the House, expressing that view generally wasn't how they won. They won with things like saying "I'm a person (maybe a veteran, which was a more common than normal Democratic candidate background this year) who will work across the aisle" and emphasizing specific issues: depending on the district, largely some combination of health insurance / pre-existing conditions, the deduction limit on state and local taxes, or aspects of Trump's immigration policies. The third probably gets closest to what Arthur is claiming. And, BTW, 11 winning Democratic candidates in competitive House races - plus another 6 in races that aren't yet called - also publicly came out against voting for Pelosi as speaker.

    There's no doubts that the tweets and general discourse from Trump hurt Republicans in some of the competitive - often suburban - districts that they lost, but there's more to it than that. In these competitive districts that flipped, the new House members are going to have to campaign for re-election in 2 years with something a whole hell lot of better than "I went along with Nadler attempting to re-fight the Kavanaugh confirmation (or whatever anti-Trump gesture is pushed by people like Nadler, Waters, and Schiff)".

  • Kazinski||

    Beat it out him? I suppose you can use that metaphor in politics but not this election.

    Obama got the shit kicked out of him in 2010 when he lost 6 Senate seats and over 60 in the house. That's a beating. But gaining about 3 Senate seats mitigates most of the sting from losing the house, makes it more like getting your car keyed in the parking lot while your enjoying a nice dinner.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Gaining 3 seats while being rid of McCain, Flake, and Corker, you mean. With those three gone, it would be a more effective majority even if it hadn't grown any.

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    The Dems are fully the party of Maxine Waters now.

  • Fats of Fury||

    Nattering Nadlers of Negativism.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Pelosi is doing her best to tamp down this talk. She started last night. She knows it'll be a shitshow bug she may not have a choice.

  • DaveT1000||

    Right, seems like the current version of the fairly common situation for a party with a House majority where the safe seat reps have one set of priorities (tied, in an electoral sense, to the risk of losing a primary challenge) and the reps in highly competitive seats whose future electoral prospects are tied to the middle of the political spectrum.

  • Dillinger||

    Lindsay cute when angry.

    >>>Trump has taken over the GOP

    party needed it. too many (D)s.

  • Eddy||

    "There Will Be Holy Hell to Pay"

    At least it's not the *unholy* kind of Hell.

  • John||

    Lindsay just didn't want to see Big Sexy leave town.

  • Bronze Khopesh||

    I understand Sessions wears only American flag Speedos.

  • Just Say'n||

    Maybe your friends in the media shouldn't have pushed obviously fabricated gang rape accusations against one of his fellow neocons. Sorry, that not all the neocons are your buddies. Maybe write another apologia for Mitch Daniels?

  • John||

    The Kavanaugh thing seems to have transformed Graham.

  • Tony||

    He's firmly on the side of keeping skeletons in the closet.

  • John||

    People like you slandering one of his friends as a gang rapist had nothing to do with I am sure.

  • Just Say'n||

    Graham is not a homosexual. He's a warsexual. He's aroused by pictures of dead Arabs

  • John||

    No silly, that is Susan Power.

  • John||

    I take that back. You are thinking of John Brennen.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    John brennan the traitor?

  • CatoTheChipper||

    Hillary. "We came, we saw, he died" ... and then, after a brief and obnoxious cackle, she came again.

  • Fats of Fury||

    So he's a Muslim too?

  • Juice||

    Hmm, looks like Scott Walker is going to lose, but it's really close.

    People on reddit seem to think that WI, PA, and MI having Dem governors matters for 2020. Not sure why they think that.

  • John||

    Having a Democratic governor allows them to more easily commit election fraud. That is the thinking anyway.

  • BigT||

    Gerrymandering

  • DiegoF||

    That doesn't really suggest any importance for the 2020 elections themselves. I don't know any states that plan to redistrict for 2020. It's true however that because you need a trifecta to completely fuck over the opposite party with your redistricting, having a Democratic governor in place until 2022 woulc block such a measure.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    States dont get a choice aboit redistricting after the census in 2020.

    CA, NY and other Blue states are losing House seats. Red states like Georgia are gaining House seats.

  • Fancylad||

    People on reddit
    Well there's your problem. Go to 4chan /pol/, apparently they're always right, just ask them.

  • Nardz||

    In memes is truth

  • loveconstitution1789||

    For many states Any congressman that dies or resigns because of federal indictment can be replaced by the governor.

  • Ecoli||

    True.

  • Bronze Khopesh||

  • perlchpr||

    Realdoll kickstarter?

  • Bronze Khopesh||

    Also in a town near me the lefty gays and their supporters are going to have an art-in to protest Trump.

    That should do it. I expect that by the end of the day Trump will have been impeached, arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced and Hillary installed in his place.

  • Tony||

    Rumor has it Don Jr. is days away from being indicted and this has accelerated Sr.'s desperate and futile attempt to obstruct the investigation.

  • John||

    Rumor has it that I am just days away from finally getting that date with Olivia Wilde. We can always dream Tony. We can always dream.

  • Tony||

    I was impressed by LC's contrition today re: his stupid-ass prediction about who would take the House. But in contrast when the big-name indictments start coming down, you're just going to disappear for a while on a truckstop BJ bender and come back pretending like you didn't make a bunch of truly ill-advised predictions, right?

    Stop reading only right-wing media. It's taken you completely out of reality, and I fear for your sanity once the shit starts really hitting the fan.

  • John||

    When all these indictments start coming down, I will be too busy enjoying my flying pig to post on here.

    Tony you have never owned up to being wrong about antying. You believe every Democratic talking point no matter how idiotic. And when they turn out to be wrong, you just pretend you never said it.

    There is never going to be any big indictments. There is nothing there. Trump is never going to be impeached and will likely be re-elected and serve until 2025. Why you torture yourself by continuing to believe whatever fantasies you read on DU is beyond me. It is not healthy.

  • Tony||

    It's not from a Democratic talking point that Jr. is about to be indicted.

  • John||

    Yes it is. You read it on DU or Vox or God knows where. And it is insane. And even if it were true, Trump Jr. isn't President. Trump would just pardon him and no one but idiots like you would care.

    Just accept reality.

  • Bubba Jones||

    I think it would be politically awkward for him to pardon his own son.

    At least prior to November 2020.

  • John||

    Not really. Not if the indictment was some bullshit thing. And it would be forgotten by the election anyway.

  • Tony||

    Now pretend it was Hillary pardoning Chelsea! No big thang, right?

  • Fancylad||

    I don't think anyone expects Hillary to do the right thing, ever. Not even her own side.
    That's what the NYT and WaPo is for, to cover up her little indiscretions.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Hillary cannot pardon chelsea because she lost to....TRUMP.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    No, I agree, he's likely to be indicted for some BS state level charge during the next two years. It doesn't technically require that he be guilty of anything, after all, and there are a fair number of Democratic state AG's who'd love the credit for doing it.

    But don't expect it soon, October surprises are typically scheduled for election years, which 2019 isn't.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Hey Tony, the NYT has the Democratic Party lead for the House at 5 seats. 5 seats!

    Hahaha.

    I appreciate your apology. It is good of you to admit that thinking abrams, beto, gillum would win was wrong.

  • John||

    It must be fun to be the guy who comes up with the daily talking points for the Democratic Party. There is literally nothing, no matter how stupid, that you idiots won't believe.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Can you cite this rumors? And remember indictment doesn't equal conviction.
    Also, if you want to know more about how ethical Mueller is in his investigations, read about the Ted Stevens case.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Looked it up. Sources an anynomous White House source (because they've been so right) and a single democratic lawmaker and Avenatti. The Daily Intelligencer and Vanity Fairis the only one reporting this. Vanity Fair speculated that Trump is depressed because Trump Jr might be indicted at some point but offered no evidence other than unnamed sources who said Don Jr is worried he may be indicted. And the it charges that they are speculating he may be charged with... Drum roll...................... Mueller's favorite crime de jour when he has nothing, lying to investigators.

  • soldiermedic76||

    And you lie about it not being from Democratic talking points since both publications that are reporting these unsubstantiated rumors are both massive propaganda rags for the Democrats.

  • Knutsack||

    What's hilarious is Instapundit pointing out that Nadler is asking for an investigation when just a year ago, ..."Jeff Sessions must resign as AG. He cannot possibly lead DOJ to promote trust and rule of law."

    What would make Suderman look more like a libertarian would be highlighting both sides of the idiocy. Explaining how politicians gotta politicate.

    Blah, blah, cosmos, and parties and all of that.

  • John||

    Suderman is just a leftist who needs a paycheck.

  • BigT||

    And a real drag on the Reason podcast. KMW should replace him.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    So, in the last year, a tin-foil hat allegation has morphed into a steaming pile of dog shit. Even Lindsey knows which way the stench wafts.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    In the space of a year, Graham went from Trump critic, warning about impeachment, to Trump backer, taking the president's side on Jeff Sessions.

    Graham thought there might be something to the Mueller investigation. Now he knows there isn't. This isn't complicated.

  • Ordinary Person||

    If there was nothing to the investigation Trump wouldn't have completely humiliated Jeff Sessions to try to end it. If it's not a threat, Trump wouldn't have been so singularly focused on it this whole time. You just can't have it both ways. Trump is terrified.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    You just can't have it both ways.

    Which two ways am I attempting to have it?

  • Trigger Warning||

    Front and back?

  • Ordinary Person||

    You're claiming the investigation is a joke and a serious threat to Trump. That's the contradiction. If there's no evidence then Trump has had nothing to fear and no reason to obstruct investigations into obviously guilty people like Manafort and the Russian actors and one would wonder why Trump have has devoted so much energy to fighting something that isn't a threat. Trump hasn't humiliated Sessions for nothing. That's my instincts at least.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Trump is quite reasonably pissed at Sessions for not telling him he would recuse himself when the 100% foreseeable shenanigans began.

    There's zero evidence that Trump has obstructed investigation into Russia or Manafort.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    If anyone had anything on Trump, it would public by now or Trump would he acting weird like he was being controlled via blackmail.

    Trump is in it to win it for Americans.

  • TLBD||

    If the FBI investigates you on something you know to be a joke, do you treat the actual investigation that way?

    No, because the FBI can ruin you even if you are innocent. They have proven over time that they are willing to do so.

    Please use some simple logic before calling other people out. That is, if you don't want to look stupid.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Yes because innocent people welcome malicious investigations with little to no evidence, bases upon faulty information. I know I call my local sheriff and ask him each week to perform an envasive and induendo filled investigation into me and my family. Doesn't everyone?

  • Kazinski||

    Most people also like having wild rumors manufactured about them playing water sports with Russian whores too.

    Or so I've heard.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Or in another way of stating it: only guilty people are bothered by malicious attacks and investigations. Innocent people are totes ok with that happening to them.

  • Ordinary Person||

    Manafort is guilty as hell and he was taking money from Putin and working to advance Putin's interests. The very person Trump chooses to manage his campaign. I don't know what Mueller and the FBI have if anything on Trump but I know they busted Manafort taking dirty corrupt money. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Trump wants some of that same money.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The election is over. Expect mueller to be canned. Rosenstein to be canned. manafort and everyone else to be pardoned.

    There is a chance that Trump does not care about being re-elected and intends on crippling the Democratic Party before he quits.

    Getting Hillary indicted would be one such strategy.

    Although, Trump getting reelected would have more of an effect on the democratic party anyway. The democrats are falling apart.

  • Kazinski||

    The better solution is give Mueller till the end of the year to wrap up his investigation and make his indictments, or issue a report and say he came up dry.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Manafort was convicted of banking infractions for work he did for a Ukranian. Any relationship to Putin was at best second hand. This also occurred years before manafort worked for Trump, and had nothing to do with his campaign work. Also, Manafort only briefly was the campaign manager and wasn't he fired for because of his rumored ties to Ukraine? Oh Yes he was. So once the story broke, Trump fired him (well he resigned before he was fired).
    He was not convicted of taking dirty money (and there was no conviction of related to any of the work being illegal). So no it wasn't "dirty money" he was convicted for it was not properly reporting it to the IRS.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    Also, an entire year has elapsed. Lots of things that looked reasonable a year ago have proven to be wrong.

  • Dillinger||

    totes forgot all day:

    Paul Ryan can fuck off and go away.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    A good about the GOP potentially losing the House is it cleared out a bunch of RINOs and paul ryan will be done politically. Hes a shitty leader.

  • Trigger Warning||

    Remember when Senator Graham wasn't a retarded embarrassment to the people of South Carolina? Neither do I.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    At least he's become a better troll now that McCain isn't cradling his nutsack anymore.

  • Ordinary Person||

    Here's the bottomline. If Whitaker is shown evidence that there is probable cause to pursue a criminal investigation of Trump or any of his associates then Whitaker is legally bound to permit further inquiry. If Whitaker uses his office to shield Trump or his associates from an active investigation then he is himself committing a crime by participating in the obstruction of a crime for political and/or personal advantage.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Answer the fucking question, shithead.

  • Ordinary Person||

    An investigation that uncovers nothing that demands nothing from Trump cannot also be a serious threat to Trump. We know Trump is supremely self absorbed. Trump wouldn't care about Mueller if there was nothing for Mueller to find. There's no fucking deep state conspiracy. There's no possible way to frame Trump. There's either evidence of crimes of there isn't. There is either a promising criminal leads or there are not. I hope Jeff Sessions wasn't humiliated for political theater. I hope Trump is hiding criminal conduct.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Who said it's a serious threat? I've only ever heard that from you Louise Mensch lunatics.

  • Ordinary Person||

    Trump says it's a threat. Trump's obsession with it says it. Trump's humiliation of Sessions over it says it. Trump's humiliation of the FBI and CIA says it. Trump humiliation before Putin says it.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Seems easier to just provide the quote.

  • DiegoF||

    This is like a classic GenX movie mashup between "Answer the question, Claire" and "Where's the fucking money, shithead?" (And maybe Braveheart's "Just answer the fucking question.") At least that is what came to mind when reading!

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Jacob from Lost playing the Chinaman's sidekick is the correct answer.

  • DiegoF||

    I have never seen Lost even at the peak of its popularity--a wise decision given how everyone ended up feeling about it, I'd wager--but I was indeed delighted to see that Blond Treehorn Thug (he is Woo's partner not sidekick thank you very much) went on to further things.

  • Jerryskids||

    If Whitaker uses his office to shield Trump or his associates from an active investigation then he is himself committing a crime by participating in the obstruction of a crime for political and/or personal advantage.

    Half the AG's from RFK to John Mitchell, Ed Meese, Janet Reno, Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch would like to know what your point is. That's the AG's job, to cover up the President's crimes and to a lesser extent the crimes of anybody in his administration, like say a Secretary of State selling her office and access to classified information to anybody with two rubles to rub together. What did you think the AG's job was? Some bullshit you learned in 8th-grade civics class from some over-paid clapped-out alcoholic hag who also told you teachers were the most noble of the self-sacrificing humble public servants?

  • Sevo||

    Your tin-foil hat is on special; aisle 6, idiot.

  • Sevo||

    Ordinary Person|11.7.18 @ 8:57PM|#
    "Here's the bottomline."

    TDS.
    Fuck off, lefty ignoramus.

  • Ecoli||

    There seems to be credible evidence that Hillary Clinton colluded with the Russians to influence the 2016 election, and more than credible evidence that she violated the espionage act with her reckless handling of highly classified information.

    Perhaps an indictment for those crimes?

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Judy you were meant to be only with me, la-da-da-da
    Judy you were born in moonlight...

  • Rockabilly||

    What a beautiful voice !

  • Michael Cook||

    My theory is that Rosenstein has been sitting on evidence long suppressed about Hillary and that the whole ginned-up Russia probe against Trump and all his minions was begun precisely to distract from that reality. To the joy of the Deep Staters they had something on Jeff Sessions that scared him into frightened submission despite his President telling him to take charge of his department and produce all evidence in unredacted form.

    Think of it as two gangs crowded into a small room. The leader of each gang has a hand grenade. Trump has just pulled the pin on his grenade and dropped it at the feet of the Rosenstein-Mueller boys.

    Betcha we won't be long in finding out now who has been holding back what. . .

  • loveconstitution1789||

    There is a reason that the deep state boys hate Trump this much.

    You might be right but even if youre not, Trump does not seem to cave to neocon deep state traitors. This scares the shit out of the deep staters.

  • Rockabilly||

    No, I didn't.

    Now will The Donald re-legalize the marijuana and what will Ben & Jerry do?

  • DiegoF||

    Probably smoke it and continue to count the money they got from selling their delicious pints of chunky virtue signal to the Unilever Corporation.

  • No Yards Penalty||

    It's amazing what showing a guy the photos of his visit to a roadside glory hole will do to get him on board.

  • DiegoF||

    Plot twist: They guy on the other side was Janet Reno.

  • Eddy||

    Remember that Simpson's Halloween story about the evil, possessed wig: "Hell Toupee"?

  • Eddy||

  • Dave Boz||

    Democrats 2017: Jeff Sessions awful, horrible, must resign. Cannot possibly lead Justice Dept. We are United!

    Democrats 2018: Constitutional Crisis!

    Peter Suderman knows only that "Graham's flip-flop is illustrative." Like any good Democrat, he ignores any inconvenient flip-flop that might reflect poorly on his Party. Flip-flops by Democrats are not illustrative. No, not illustrative of anything.

  • vek||

    That's because going full on Trump is better than being the cucks they have been for the last few decades!

    I don't agree on all policies... But there is something to be said for actually having the balls to push for the things you want, instead of giving in to the MSM and the whining of THE OPPOSITION PARTY about every fucking issue.

    The truth is the future of America is at stake... It's probably already too late to pull it out... But if there is any chance at doing it at all, it's going to take some balls. So a Trumpian party stands a lot better chance at doing that than the "Party Of Jeb Bush" ever would.

  • DaveT1000||

    I won't deny that there's some political calculation here by Graham - he is a politician, so it would be surprising if there wasn't - but "flip-flop" from Suderman is far too strong a term to use given the timeline here.

    Mueller was appointed as Special Counsel in May 2017. Graham's "holy hell to pay" quote was in July 2017, so two months after Mueller was on the scene.

    So, since Graham's "holy hell to pay" quote, Mueller's investigation has proceeded from a two month investigation to an 18 month (and still going) investigation. There have some indictments handed down for Russian hackers (who are exceedingly unlikely ever to end up facing trial in U.S. courts), but the bulk of the legal activity from Mueller has been getting guys such as Manafort for things that have nothing to do with the 2016 election or alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. We've also had a Senate Intelligence Committee report on Russian interference in the 2016 elections (released May 2018) as well as a House Intelligence Committee report in early 2018. I think it would be a foolish political move for Trump to instruct a new AG to fire Mueller, but it's pretty silly from Suderman to say that viewing Mueller's investigation differently after 18 months than after two months has to be a "flip flop". At some point the thing has to end, and the activity to date indicates that it's wandered pretty far afield without finding anything to support the "collusion" allegations.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online