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:
Attorney General Jeff Sessions has taken a VERY weak position on Hillary Clinton crimes (where are E-mails & DNC server) & Intel leakers!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 25, 2017
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?
Latest posts by Tom Tillison (see all)
- Actor Chris Pratt labeled a ‘white supremacist’ because of the flag on his shirt - July 17, 2019
- Trump keeps going; tweets label squad ‘Wack Jobs’ and ‘The Four Horsewomen of the Apocalypse’ - July 17, 2019
- Racist and sexist? WaPo marks 50th anniversary of Apollo 11 moon landing by noting ‘mostly white, male’ - July 17, 2019