The Democratic Party’s attempt to undermine the general ability of the Trump administration to govern – as opposed to challenging particular policies with which Democrats might disagree – continues apace.
The Democratic drumbeat that led to the unfortunate decision by Attorney General Jeff Sessions to recuse himself from any yet-to-be-launched inquiries into uncorroborated claims that members of the Trump campaign may have had an unholy cooperative relationship with Russian officials is the latest indication that Democrats are determined to follow an obstructionist path.
It follows some farcical post-election recount hijinks, opposition to certain key Trump appointments on the (comical) ground that the nominees were in sync with Mr. Trump, the resignation of National Security Adviser Gen. Michael Flynn following the mysterious release of some information about theretofore secret meetings with Russian officials, and, most graphically, the endorsement by key Democrats of the post-election demonstrations.
The seed of the recusal issue was planted when in the course of his confirmation hearings Mr. Sessions responded to a question about contacts senior Trump campaign staff may have had with Russian officials. He replied in a way some say was misleading in terms of any contacts he himself may have had.
As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Mr. Sessions may well have had non-campaign related contact with Russian officials. The point though is that there is only preliminary talk of possible congressional investigations into the Russian contact issue and Mr. Sessions said he would play no official role in any decision on the matter, which would include determining whether a special prosecutor should be appointed.
But Congress has not announced the commencement of any hearings nor drawn a bead on Mr. Sessions’s testimony as a subject of future inquiry by the Justice Department. So the recusal decision is a curious one. For one thing, it was reported that he buckled under the pressure of constant calls by Democrats to either recuse himself or resign outright.
Can Mr. Sessions really be so devoid of savvy that he believes Democratic leaders – on the warpath since the election and giddy from drawing first blood in the dumping of Gen. Flynn – will not try to build on their victory over him with a significant follow-up?
More fundamentally, since there is no current investigation under way, it is hard to understand why Mr. Sessions felt the need to declare he will not participate. Participate in what? It is generally understood that recusal is called for when one has a conflict of interest respecting an issue he or she must deal with impartially. Should such a direct conflict of interest become apparent, recusal at that point might be in order. But as of now there is no place for the conflict of interest issue to land.
And this is no idle academic exercise. For all practical purposes, Mr. Sessions has left the president without an attorney general to deal with what may develop into a wildly partisan fight. Decision-making about such matters as naming a special prosecutor is a really big deal. But in this instance, that decision-making would necessarily devolve on the second in command at the Justice Department, who, because of successful Democratic efforts to thwart the confirmation of President Trump’s pick, is an Obama holdover. To be sure, there is the possibility of an interim Trump appointment when the Senate is in recess, but that gets exceedingly tricky in terms of timing.
Certainly Mr. Sessions could have waited until things were clarified. Small wonder that the president was reportedly furious when he belatedly learned of Mr. Sessions’s premature recusal decision.
