Trump Is Acting Suspicious Because He ‘May Be’ Innocent, Fox News Says

A yearlong FBI investigation into Russian hacking has failed to produce a single indictment. In fact, according to a Harvard study, despite the perception that they’re “shielding” his presidency, 52% of their coverage of him is negative.

So it’s no surprise that Sessions has stuck to his playbook, even as Trump continues to flay him.

How did we get to this peril point when there is no evidence that Trump or any senior aide colluded in the hacking? Far more important is what Graham referred to in his comments-the Senate confirmation for Trump appointees.

Foolish, yes; criminal, no. Not only would he then be stuck with Rachel Brand or a permanent civil service replacement in charge of the Russian Federation investigation, but also he would lose his strongest advocate for a set of policies (which I strenuously object to, but that is neither here nor there) that Sessions has championed including the Muslim ban, the attack on so-called sanctuary cities, mandatory minimums and civil forfeiture. He wanted no hint of guiding the probe away from truth and turned it over to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. As a special counsel, Mueller is in a different position.

Hence, where are we? Mueller is now hiring veteran investigators and prosecutors specializing in white-collar crime. He declares this a witch hunt, an attack on his family (or whatever). Ryan defended Mueller from Trump’s claim that he is a Democratic partisan. We already knew for weeks that Manafort owed million to several oligarchs who run in the same circles as Firtash.

In an article by the Washington Post titled: “Trump team seeks to control, block Mueller’s Russian Federation investigation”, an advisor close to the President said that investigating Trump’s tax returns would have nothing to do with the investigation.

Mueller, they say, won’t be satisfied to limit his investigation to the question of Russian meddling in the election and charges that the Trump campaign colluded with the Kremlin.

Consider now Trump’s narrowing options. If you believe Jeff Sessions should be fired, use the power you have and accept the consequences. Sessions not only endorsed Trump, but he did so as three of his colleagues were running for the presidency. His or her name comes to the floor of the Senate for a vote and the Senate either votes to confirm the nomination or to deny.

He could direct Rosenstein to fire Mueller. If he can find a way to show that Mueller is unfit to be special counsel, Trump can legally demand that Rosenstein fire Mueller, and Rosenstein would have no reason to refuse.

He added that Mr Trump was crossing a “red line” in his consideration to axe Mr Mueller, who was appointed by the Justice Department to lead the probe after Mr Comey was sacked. Mueller has a full-time investigative mandate staffed by an impressive group of professionals.

When Archibald Cox was sacked, Nixon ordered his entire office shut down.

Sessions cut his teeth as a federal prosecutor in Mobile, Alabama, at the height of the drug war, an experience that has shaped his approach to running the Justice Department.

So where would that leave Trump?

Fox News Chief National Correspondent Ed Henry was quite critical in his analysis of the feud, saying the attacks “came out of nowhere” and pointed to the frustrations of Trump’s legal time, which have been that “rather than letting this settle down, the President has been riling it up”.

And all the talk of impeachment and pardons suggests that this city can also see what lies over the next hill.

The White House of late has appeared to be trying to tamp down the notion that Trump wants Sessions out – without offering a rousing endorsement of him, however. If the President was following the perfectly legal guidance of Rosenstein (a position that, incidentally, Trump appeared to contradict in an interview with NBC’s Lester Holt), he could not have been obstructing justice, which requires a malicious illegal objective.