The Conservative Treehouse (Nov. 8) takes a stab at unpacking the enigma that is Jeff Sessions and the meaning behing his resignation.
The Sessions story is indeed a puzzle.
Remember: Sessions was the first senator to endorse Trump. Sessions wanted to be Attorney General and Trump nominated him. The nomination seemed plausible enough--Sessions, benign at worst, and, at best, maybe courageous enough to take on the job of chief law enforcement officer of the land!
But shortly after his appointment, Sessions recused himself from any investigation into charges that Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election--from an investigation so charged that it could strike a mortal blow against the President he legally represented.
The incongruity between Sessions' initial endorsement of Trump and his March 2017 recusal is striking--and perplexing.
What happened between Sessions' endorsement and his recusal from the Russian investigation? Was he threatened? Was he blackmailed? If so, by whom and about what? Or was he a plant in the Trump campaign to begin with?
And why wouldn't Sessions touch any of Hillary's crimes? "Attorney General" does mean top law enforcement officer, after all.
Jason Chaffetz reports in his book The Deep State: How an Army of Bureaucrats Protected Barack Obama and Is Working to Destroy the Trump Agenda that Sessions' position was set: "We're not going to do anything with that."
Was Sessions simply not strong enough, politically or morally, to withstand the pressure of the deep state forces attacking Trump?
And how plausible is the popular Internet thread to "Trust Sessions" given these questions?
Let's keep on unpacking.
To read The Conservative Treehouse article and to view a copy of Sessions' historic letter of resignation, click here.