Trump Takes His Contempt for the Law to New Heights

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Donald Trump gave a wide-ranging and revealing interview to The New York Times on Wednesday. In it, he claimed to be entitled to halt any law enforcement investigation, and was astonishingly candid about his disrespect for the Justice Department and the FBI as well as his belief that law enforcement officials should serve his personal interests.

Trump kicked off the interview by attacking his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, for recusing himself from the Russia investigation. Trump claims this was "unfair" to him and he wouldn't have appointed Sessions if he'd known he would recuse. But Sessions was only doing what the law requires.

A recusal is not an admission of guilt. When someone recuses, he merely removes himself from a matter that it would be inappropriate to be involved in. It's normal for someone appointed to a new position to have to recuse himself from certain affairs. For instance, after President Obama appointed Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, she had to recuse herself from the numerous cases she had been involved in when she served as Obama's solicitor general. Obama knew Kagan wouldn't be able to participate in some cases, but appointed her anyway because she was the right person for the job.

Trump should have known Sessions could not oversee an investigation into a campaign to which he was an adviser. And if Trump were willing to let the investigation proceed independently, it wouldn't be a problem that it might be run by someone other than an uber-Trump-loyalist. If the president believed Sessions to be the right person for the job, it shouldn't matter that he might have to recuse himself from one investigation.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/trump-takes-his-contempt-for-the-law-to-new-heights-w493468?utm_source=rsnewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=daily&utm_campaign=072117_15

[marybourg]

1. Well, the difference here, from normal

administrations, is that the unprecedented president didn't appoint Sessions because he
" believed Sessions to be the right person for the job". He appointed him because he thought Sessions would cover for him, no matter what. And he probably will. if the administration survives this sh*t storm.

[BigmanPigman]

2. I have been hearing and reading the adjective "lawless" before the Donald's name more and more.

Forget ethics and honor as far as he is concerned, that went out the window well before the election. Perhaps the "lawless" description will become more common like "crooked Hillary" or "little Marco" in the future whenever his name is uttered. Lawless Donny. It works for me. I wish it would catch on.

[PJMcK]

3. A take away from the column

"Trump should have known Sessions could not oversee an investigation into a campaign to which he was an adviser."

Trump doesn't really "know" anything. He is a total ignoramus. His ethics are so profoundly lacking in honesty that a conflict of interest is beyond his understanding.

By the way, is there anyone he's appointed or nominated who was the right person for the job? Anyone?