More than a year into his probe, Special Counsel Robert Mueller seems to be lacking evidence of collusion between President Trump’s campaign and Russia, leaving him with trying to prove obstruction of justice if he’s to nail the president.
And in that quest, Mueller is reportedly looking at private deliberations between the president and senior administration officials.
There may be even less to support obstruction, not that Muller isn’t trying. The New York Times reported on Tuesday the investigation is looking at private deliberations between the president and senior administration officials.
Specifically, the focus of interest is on a confrontation between Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who recused himself in the case.
The Times reported Sessions flew to Mar-a-Lago in March 2017 to see the president, “because Mr. Trump was refusing to take his calls about a pressing decision on his travel ban.”
More from the newspaper:
When they met, Mr. Trump was ready to talk — but not about the travel ban. His grievance was with Mr. Sessions: The president objected to his decision to recuse himself from the Russia investigation. Mr. Trump, who had told aides that he needed a loyalist overseeing the inquiry, berated Mr. Sessions and told him he should reverse his decision, an unusual and potentially inappropriate request.
Mr. Sessions refused.
Trump has repeatedly expressed his unhappiness with Session’s recusal, with those close to the president saying the decision “was overly broad and done too hastily.”
In an interview with The Times last year, Trump said he would not have gone with Sessions if he had known he was going to recuse himself.
“Jeff Sessions takes the job, gets into the job, recuses himself, which frankly I think is very unfair to the president,” he said. “How do you take a job and then recuse yourself? If he would have recused himself before the job, I would have said, ‘Thanks, Jeff, but I’m not going to take you.’ It’s extremely unfair — and that’s a mild word — to the president.”
Session’s refusal to go after Hillary Clinton has also drawn Trump’s ire:
Despite the hyperventilating on the left over The Times article, Rudy Giuliani, the newest member of Trump’s legal team, added a little perspective.
“‘Unrecuse’ doesn’t say, ‘Bury the investigation,'” Giuliani told the paper. “It says on the face of it: Take responsibility for it and handle it correctly.”
To be clear, anti-Trump forces are claiming that Trump took the extraordinary step of obstructing an investigation into a charge leveled against him — despite the fact there appears to be no evidence to support the charge.
One might suspect that if Trump is not guilty of collusion, he’d be the first to know it and would have no need to obstruct. Given the left’s all out campaign to destroy this president, with the media leading the charge, it’s more likely that Trump just wanted someone involved who wasn’t looking to being about his downfall.
But then, you can’t impeach a president for that, can you?
DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW
Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!
- Did Sunny Hostin just admit on air to breaking the law by voting for her son? - November 8, 2022
- Stacey Abrams justifies trailing in the polls by suggesting black men are too stupid to back her - November 7, 2022
- Kevin McCarthy has message for Pelosi telling Dems to ‘change the subject’ away from inflation - October 24, 2022
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.