All errors should be reported to

Tuesday, April 03, 2018

No, this is the real reason behind Sessions’ special counsel decision

Michael Goodwin of the New York Post is a good writer who strives to be a Trumpologist, but he often falls short because he frames the Trump administration in Washington terms, not on the Donald's terms.

A good example is Goodwin's column, "The real reason behind Sessions’ special counsel decision."

In a nutshell, Trump wants a second special counsel to investigate the Comey FBI, Sessions doesn't.

This makes Sessions a hero to the kneejerk press which hates everything President Trump does. If he tells them to have a nice day, some reporter would deliberately ruin their own day, just for spite.

Enter Goodwin to explain.

"The truth is that Sessions’ decision is far more complex than reports suggest. In fact, the good news is that the process he set in motion likely will result in the appointment of a second special counsel to probe the Justice Department and the FBI. The only question is timing," he wrote.

So far, so good.

But then Goodwin gives the wrong reason for Sessions not appointing a special counsel.

"Sessions wants first to determine whether the situation meets the legal standard of  'extraordinary circumstances' involving conflicts of interest that would allow him to move an investigation outside normal channels. I believe the standard will be easy to meet because there are numerous smoking guns showing that the 2016 investigations into both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were rigged by top government officials," Goodwin wrote.

That's not it at all. Sessions can appoint a special counsel at the drop of a hat. Forget what the law says. All you need is to get a special counsel is enough partisans yapping about a special counsel.

And that's the problem with special counsels. They are partisan. That discredits their work.

This predates Bob Mueller's witch hunt in which he seemingly has hired every freaking Marxist hack lawyer in Washington to be on his Fake Scandal team.

Sessions wants indictments. Sessions wants convictions. Sessions wants the reputations of the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation restored.

For that you need an apolitical inspector general, and a credible federal prosecutor.

President Trump is on board. And he knows squawking about it increases the credibility of the in-house prosecution.

I am not ruling out having an outside counsel.

But I place my bet on the in-house prosecutor indicting McCabe, Comey, and maybe even Lynch.


  1. Don't forget: Clapper, Brennan, and the State Department were in on it, too. Along with all of the top muckety-mucks roiling the swamp, there is good evidence that the White House was involved. Obama had to know. - Elric

  2. The underlings (i.e. the love birds, Bill Priestap, Bruce Ohr and his wife, Nellie)will also likely be prosecuted.

    Assuming they are cooperating, they will plead guilty to Federal felonies and serve less harsh sentences.

  3. But I place my bet on the in-house prosecutor indicting McCabe, Comey, and maybe even Lynch.

    I pray you are correct. It would be really cool.

  4. Good analysis. Concur on the Good Cop/Bad Cop squawk. Also very helpful that both Horowitz and Huber were hire by Comrade O.

    The funny thing is, Trump is a forward-looking guy. He wouldn't even be messing with this if it was his way. But the conspirators chose to continue the coup attempt with this Mueller Fraud, so here we are. I guess they had to--there is no good place to stop a coup short of success.

    There is no playbook for this. Watergate doesn't even come close. Nor Bush v. Gore, Kennedy/Nixon or the Jackson/Quincy Adams Corrupt Bargain of 1824. Even Burr's insurrection and Arnold's treason don't compare to the Deep State Coup against Washington's peaceful transfer of power, as you've noted.

    But we've never had Trump before either.

    1. I should add the one historical event that does compare to the entire NATSEC apparatus being weaponized; The Slave Power Rebellion and Copperhead Coup Attempt called the Civil War.

  5. I am thinking there might be some Congressmen who were in on the coup too, maybe even some from both parties. But I doubt Harry Reid is going to get to say “Well, it worked didn’t it?” about this one!

  6. Seems to me, you appoint a Special Counsel when you want someone outside the normal DOJ chain of command to run the investigation. Usually if there's a conflict of interest, or if the DOJ leadership is antagonistic to the very existence of such an investigation.

    As AG, Sessions IS the DOJ. He doesn't need a special counsel because he can appoint whomever he likes to lead the investigation - someone he has confidence will do a thorough job. And, someone that will be directly under his authority the entire time. And, in fact, this is actually what Sessions has done.

    If you are AG, why would you EVER want a Special Counsel for anything? Unless you are determined to pretend the investigation is completely outside your control or interference, and even then - better to simply not have the investigation.

  7. You know when I will know Sessions is either a complete and utter failure or a committed serious man? When I see results of all of this. So far, I am reserving judgment.