Do I think Attorney General Jeff Sessions made the right call when he recused himself in March from any involvement in the phony investigation of Russian collusion?
No.
Do I think Jeff Sessions has all his priorities straight as attorney general?
No.
Do I think it would be a good idea for Jeff Sessions to assign a team of impartial Justice Department attorneys to investigate Bill and Hillary Clinton's prima facie case of collusion with Russia for personal gain?
TRENDING: Greatest Show on Earth: The Hur report hearing
Yes.
Do I think Jeff Sessions should assign impartial Justice Department attorneys to investigate Hillary Clinton's email scandal?
Yes.
Do I think Jeff Sessions should assign a Justice Department task force to investigate how Hillary Clinton used her position as secretary of state to direct money to the Clinton Foundation?
Yes.
Do I think Jeff Sessions should be looking into former Attorney General Loretta Lynch's role in shutting down the FBI probe into Hillary Clinton's breached of national security as secretary of state?
Yes.
I could go on.
But you get the point.
I find myself in sympathy with President Trump's disappointment in his selection for attorney general, who has said in the past that he would not play a role in any investigation of Hillary Clinton and would leave such investigation to others. "I believe that would be the best approach for the country, because we can never have a political dispute turn into a criminal dispute, in any way that would suggest anything other than absolute objectivity. This country does not punish its political enemies, but this country ensures no one is above the law," Sessions said in January.
I also sympathize with Sessions' point, with one caveat: If not the Justice Department he heads, exactly who is it that is going to investigate Hillary Clinton?
And that's where I think Trump's frustration with Sessions has some validity.
That said, I must say that the president's public feud with Sessions is inappropriate, counterproductive, tasteless, ungentlemanly, unseemly, disturbing and bad form.
What Trump should have done as president was to call Sessions into the Oval Office and tell him – man to man – what he thought.
What do YOU think? Is the White House conflict real or a show? Sound off in today's WND poll!
Taking this dispute with his own handpicked choice for attorney general to the New York Times – the No. 1 opposition voice to everything both Trump and Sessions stand for – was a shockingly bad decision. Tweeting his criticism of Sessions was just as bad, if not worse.
What the president has created for himself now is a no-win situation.
Should Sessions correct his errors of the past and do what Trump wants, every one of those actions will now be attacked with greater fury and a paper trail of public political directives from the White House.
Should Sessions do nothing, the Clintons will once again have escaped justice for crimes for which any other American, save perhaps Barack Obama, would have paid dearly. In fact, it's worse than that. Should the Clintons not only forgo punishment for their crimes, they will be able to claim they were obviously innocent of any wrongdoing because even conservative Republican attorney general, one of their harshest critics, essentially cleared them by not instigating any probe.
In other words, both Sessions and Trump have effectively laid the groundwork for another Houdini-like escape from justice by the Clintons.
While Trump endures 24/7 media scrutiny into alleged Russian collusion, for which there is no evidence, as well as an official witch-hunt by an independent counsel with no limits on boundaries and budget, Bill and Hillary Clinton are as free as birds, without a care in the world, with no one looking at their long record of corruption, malfeasance and personal inurement.
It's the worst possible outcome.
And both Sessions and Trump share some responsibility.
Media wishing to interview Joseph Farah, please contact [email protected].