Trump Looks to Ted Cruz as New AG as His Cabinet Cries “Clusterf**k”

5
Share

President Trump needs to tread carefully on his relationships with his supporters inside the White House because the Democrats are out gunning for him. Real Clear Politics quoted Luis Gutierrez saying that when the Democrats take the majority, they are going to “eliminate” Trump.

If he fires his most loyal supporter, Trump will have serious problems. If Sessions quits after a barrage of verbal attacks by the President, he will have serious problems.

The President is said to be looking for replacements for Jeff Sessions because Sessions was compelled to recuse himself in the Russia investigation. Rudy Giuliani swatted away the idea it would be him, but word is out that Trump’s looking at Ted Cruz.

The senator, however, is not interested in becoming Trump’s next “beleaguered” attorney general.

Axios reported that President Trump, in one of his hallmark rituals, recently called a longtime political associate and asked out of the blue: “What would happen if I fired Sessions?”

Reflecting the conversations going on inside Trumpworld, the political associate says he replied: “If you’re going to fire people at Justice, don’t you want to save that bullet for Mueller?”

Trump hasn’t slowed down

President Trump blasted Jeff Sessions again this morning just as the roosters crowed.

Trump sent this out this morning.

It’s a “clusterf**k”

There is said to be a visceral internal reaction at the Cabinet level to President Trump’s treatment of Jeff Sessions. One Cabinet secretary who remains unnamed told Erick Erickson, it’s seen as a “clusterf**k”.

Sessions has been Trump’s most loyal supporter and when the going got rough over the Billy Bush tape, Sessions stood by him, though it couldn’t have been easy. Sessions gave up a guaranteed Senate seat for him and for the job he says he “loves”. Cabinet members feel if he can be treated this way, what kind of loyalty can they expect.

Erick Erickson reported this morning that the Cabinet secretaries believe the Washington Post story about Jeff Sessions meeting with Russians came from the White House itself. A senior White House staffer allegedly told Erickson that “The President does not like to fire people, believe it or not. But putting the AG in an untenable position could get him to quit. The President is passive-aggressive.”

Perhaps that senior White House staffer needs to be fired, but nonetheless, that is what he told Erickson.

Firing the most loyal of his Cabinet secretaries will undermine their loyalty for him as Erickson points out. They are in a position to greatly undermine the President.

Erickson, not a Trump supporter during the election, said the Secretary he spoke with explained there will be a Cabinet-level revolt if Trump fires Sessions because if he fires the one who is most loyal, what could happen to them?

CNN reports that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is becoming “increasingly frustrated” with President Donald Trump and his administration to the point where he is allegedly considering a resignation from his post, and could quit before 2017 ends.

Speaking to CNN, the sources attribute Tillerson’s change of heart to several things, including findings that the Secretary of State was found to have violated U.S. sanctions against Russia while he was CEO of Exxon-Mobile. Another instance is said to have stemmed from the way that Trump recently railed against Attorney General Jeff Sessions, when he said that he would have thought twice before appointing him as AG.

H.R. McMaster is frustrated by what he sees as disorganization and indiscipline on key policy issues inside the White House.”.

Some of the discontent, especially with Tillerson and McMaster, is part of the clash of cultures between the internationalists/globalists and the America First adherents.

Secretary Mattis is also said to be “bothered by it” in reference to the treatment of Sessions. The Cabinet members in general, according to Erickson, do not feel valued any more than the lowest level staff. They see the most loyal of his staff, Jeff Sessions, being treated disloyally.

There is also anger brewing over the lack of appointments to their staff seven months into the administration. Many are held up because they don’t pass the Trump loyalty test, Erickson writes in The Resurgent.

Share

5 COMMENTS

  1. I have little regard for anything Erickson has to say. His hyperbolic and rebellious reactions during the campaign disqualify him as a source of truth and factual accounts. He would literally say anything in order to accuse Trump of being the most heinous person imaginable. His part in the NeverTrump movement, along with Glenn Beck, Bill Kristol and others, showed definitively their tactics and methods are more suitable to the Democrat Party. Even though he seemed to change his tune recently one cannot overlook his past actions which were unethical, from a person who claimed a higher ethical standard.

    We have to either assume his facts are in question or the possibility his sources are the same NeverTrumpers he was aligned with. Either way the possibility there are some whose efforts are to damage the Administration is without question given the Only leak that didn’t occur.

    There are far too many in the land of Pundits whose purpose in life seems to suggest They would know better in making the appropriate decisions in all matters relating to the Administration even though they are not privy to the facts at hand. The main area of contention are the tweets of Trump. Most would agree he should limit the tweets to Policy only but this ignores the battle that is underway. The most effective means to win battles is staying on offense and the many tweets are that means.

    These Pundits also want to assume Trump is incompetent, mainly because of the tweets, and maybe other reasons also. If one doesn’t know the strategy of any action how do they propose to know whether or not it’s a matter of competency. Before one makes such an assumption it would be prudent to look at past actions. Everyone who now makes these accusations are following the same pattern as during the election. How many of the same said he could NOT win. Apparently I’m under the false assumption he DID win. Therefore, people should pause in their thinking especially considering we are very early in an Administration. There have been Administrations in the past that were just as tumultuous.

    • The sources here are unreliable and biased.

      The plot to eliminate trump is real. There are various tactics being used in this early phase. One is the claims that Trump is making too much noise over all this. They want Trump to shut up, including Twitter. Another is the claim of Trump being disloyal, his ideas to shake things up will hurt him. And, that firing anyone will be a fatal move. In other words, they do not want Trump to defend himself, just as no one else including Sessions is defending him.

      In a latter phase, claims will be made that Trump messed this all up and so he must go.

      In the area of loyalty, Sessions has not demonstrated any in office.

  2. I would say my perception is Sessions has succumbed to tunnel vision in the job. Of course the issue of criminal illegals was predominant in the campaign but the majority of resources in that endeavor are relegated to ICE and their agents. The AG himself plays a minor role in that pursuit yet he seems to spend an inordinate amount of time in front of the press on that subject. The conclusion that can be drawn is Sessions is undoubtedly pursuing the policies of Trump, but only minimally.

    There were other Major issues that Trump defined in his campaign and in my estimation much more important and that is the widespread Government corruption. Yet there seems to be no indication of any actions that were exposed by the FISA court. The court gave a scathing rebuke of the FBI in the case with the NSA. There are a good number of cases that warrant investigation by Special Prosecutors in conjunction with Congressional hearings but every branch of Government are ignoring their own misdeeds against the American Public.

    There are Conservative writers who are condemning Trump for his tweets regarding Sessions and even suggesting Sessions should have endorsed Cruz rather than Trump. The NeverTrumpers that eventually took Trump’s side are now, once again, abandoning him when the slightest references are made. They are so blinded to an ideology that someone in their circles must be defended at any expense. It is likely that Trump has acquired information So devastating to the inner circles of Government that would have the Brenan’s and Clapper’s in panic mode. I have the suspicion they may be fearful that Trump may be forced to reveal some of the illegal actions. It should noted that a comment was made by one of these men “the future of Government” is at stake. THIS could very well have some hidden meanings, “the future of Government”. How. WHAT is being upset here. Even if Trump fires Mueller how does that affect the operation of Government. They are worried about something much more than is stated to use such apocalyptic terms.

  3. Greg,Trump mentioned the DNC server in his tweet, he just may have something, here is part of an article on Zero Hedge……….In a memo to President Trump, a group of former U.S. intelligence officers, including NSA specialists, cite new forensic studies…,,,,,,,Mr. President:

    This is our first VIPS Memorandum for you, but we have a history of letting U.S. Presidents know when we think our former intelligence colleagues have gotten something important wrong, and why. For example, our first such memorandum, a same-day commentary for President George W. Bush on Colin Powell’s U.N. speech on February 5, 2003, warned that the “unintended consequences were likely to be catastrophic,” should the U.S. attack Iraq and “justfy” the war on intelligence that we retired intelligence officers could readily see as fraudulent and driven by a war agenda.Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the United Nations on Feb. 5. 2003, citing satellite photos which supposedly proved that Iraq had WMD, but the evidence proved bogus.

    The January 6 “Intelligence Community Assessment” by “hand-picked” analysts from the FBI, CIA, and NSA seems to fit into the same agenda-driven category. It is largely based on an “assessment,” not supported by any apparent evidence, that a shadowy entity with the moniker “Guccifer 2.0” hacked the DNC on behalf of Russian intelligence and gave DNC emails to WikiLeaks.After examining metadata from the “Guccifer 2.0” July 5, 2016 intrusion into the DNC server, independent cyber investigators have concluded that an insider copied DNC data onto an external storage device, and that “telltale signs” implicating Russia were then inserted. It is a long article, but very interesting,

  4. In considering the totality of information we have so far it can be determined that since Clapper KNEW of the meeting with the Russian lawyer and those who were present, by his own acknowledgment, he most likely was the impetus behind what transpired thereafter. HE was the one who notified the FBI and subsequently sought FISA approval.

    It was his Cold War mentality that allowed a “Conspiracy” in his mind to fester. It’s beginning to look like Intelligence Agencies are the main purveyors of these theories. The media has ignored a very important part of the Assessment, which is the NSA did NOT have “High” confidence in Russian preference for Trump. Of course this diminishes Clapper’s claim of concerns with the meeting.

    I wonder how many assets are employed in fighting this Russian hysteria. We do know from reports that Russia spends less than 10% of what we spend on Defense. We spend Ten Times the money against an adversary and yet we are to believe they are surpassing us in World Affairs. Something doesn’t add up here.

Comments are closed.