Trump has pretty much made it impossible to fire either Sessions or Rosenstein. The Senate has already made it known that if Sessions is fired, they won’t confirm a replacement, and if Rod “The Man” Rosenstein, the face of the Russia investigation is screwed with it’s going to set off all kinds of obstruction of justice alarm bells and lines of inquiry. That got used up with the firing of Comey in an attempt to stop the Russia counterintelligence investigation.
Sessions is living out his lifes dream of eliminating all immigration into the US, stopping black people from voting, and putting dopers in prison. Why else would he put up with the humiliations he’s getting from Trump? You also have to wonder if there’s a little self satisfaction in Sessions knowing just how ■■■■■■ Trump is and wanting to be there to make sure it happens after how he’s been treated by Trump after being such an early and ardent supporter.
Yep. And there are hundreds of potential examples, that when pieced together could draw a very specific and intentional attempt to obstruct justice here. Which is why all of the legal advice originally given to Trump was to keep his mouth shut, not mention the investigation or the potential witnesses, and generally stay out of it. But Trump was wholly incapable of this, due to his arrogance, ego, and the fact he has bullied and bought his way out of trouble his entire life. Now could be different though. And his mouth has placed him in an even greater amount of peril.
Most Presidents know that it is a lot better for their case if they appear to ignore such investigations and appear to rise above all of that. Trump has no such finesse. Quite the opposite - with Comey, he took actions that pretty well ensured a bright spotlight and magnifying glass would be focused on him. Not the brightest tool in the shed.
The IG report concluded that they were correct to Not file any criminal charges against her.
Third, the IG broadly validates the investigation’s conclusion: to decline to seek charges against Clinton or anyone else. The report spends a number of pages detailing the prosecutors’ reasons for not recommending charges. The prosecutors told the IG of a host of reasons why they couldn’t establish the necessary criminal intent to bring charges under the relevant statutes. Not one of the emails in question had the required classification markers, for example. No evidence supported the notion that Clinton or the people sending emails to her knew the contents were classified. Clinton and her correspondents sent the emails to government officers in support of official business, and there exists no history of charging people under such circumstances. None of the subjects intended to send classified information to unauthorized parties or to store such information on unauthorized networks. The senders frequently refrained from using specific classified details, facts or terms in their emails. Mishandling of classified information at the State Department was such a widespread practice that it was difficult for prosecutors to establish specific criminal intent on behalf of Clinton or the other senders. The report concludes that prosecutors applied those facts to the relevant statutes and the Justice Department’s policies on those statutes in a sober and unbiased manner: “We found that the prosecutors’ decision was based on their assessment of the facts, the law, and past Department practice in cases involving these statutes. We did not identify evidence of bias or improper considerations.”