It is becoming increasingly apparent that loyalty in the Trump Administration is a one-way street.
Indeed, it appears that unless your name is Trump or you’re married to someone named Trump, you’re expendable.
That lesson is being played out in prime time this week, as we watch Trump engage in daily criticism of his Attorney-General, Jeff Sessions.
I have never been a fan of Sessions who has a history of being a racist dingbat and is anxious to move forward the worst of the Trump Administration’s goals and objectives.
But, say what you might about him, he was the first member of the Senate to endorse Trump and gave his candidacy legitimacy in the Republican Party.
He served as a campaign surrogate for Trump and was the magnet that attracted Breitbart News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and all of the other alt-right nut cases to the Trump campaign. His mission thus far has been to reverse every advancement that has been made in the judicial process.
If Trump fires him or succeeds in provoking his resignation, I will not shed a tear at his departure.
In fact, I’m more likely to shed a tear at his replacement because anyone who takes the position will likely lack any brains at all.
Nevertheless there are lessons to this little morality play.
Trump’s major criticism of Sessions springs from Sessions recusing himself from overseeing the probe of Russian meddling in the Presidential election and collusion with his campaign.
Trump contends that Sessions should have told him that he would recuse himself before he was selected as Attorney-General and, if he had, someone else would have been appointed.
This, of course, overlooks the fact that Sessions recusal didn’t come until March 2017, almost two months after his confirmation, after Sessions was revealed to have concealed meetings during the campaign with Russian officials and after the ethics officials at the Justice Department informed Sessions that it would constitute a conflict of interest for him to oversee the probe.
Trump has already demonstrated over and over that he doesn’t recognize a conflict of interest when he has one, so why should anyone be surprised that he doesn’t recognize Session’s.
The timing of this campaign to drive Sessions from his job is important in understanding it.
In the four months since Sessions recused himself Trump has expressed mild and sporadic disapproval of that decision.
That changed after the revelation of the June 2016 meeting attended by Donald Jr., Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort and the Russian Government attorney offering dirt on Hillary Clinton and support for Trump’s candidacy was disclosed.
That seemed to pique the interest of Special Counsel, Robert Mueller and the need for criminal lawyers to be hired.
Now, Trump’s son and son-in-law have had to hire criminal defense attorneys because they may find themselves under indictment, depending on what more is learned.
Given the closeness of Trump to his son and son-in-law, it strains credulity to believe that Trump didn’t know about the meeting until this past month as he claims.
Indeed, his public call for “Russia, if you’re listening, find Hillary Clinton’s e-mails,” appears to be less and less serendipitous.
As Congress gets closer and closer to an August recess, Trump’s attacks on Sessions have become more vicious, strident and frequent.
There is little doubt that Trump has been trying to shame him into resigning.
Thus far, Sessions has declared that he will not quit.
No less than Rudy Giuliani and Kenneth Starr, among other Trump supporters, have opined that Sessions decision to recuse himself was the only proper one to make.
Starr went so far as to rebuke Trump’s new Communications flack, Anthony Scaramuccci, for his claim that Sessions should be Trump’s “hockey goalie.”
This kind of bizarre thinking leads one to wonder whether Scaramucci really did graduate from Harvard Law School and, if he did, what Harvard Law is teaching their students.
That, however, has not placated Trump.
Clearly his strategy is to get Sessions to quit during Congress’s August recess so that he can appoint an attorney-General who could serve, without requiring confirmation hearings, until the end of his first term.
Or it might be possible that Mitch McConnell could use the confirmation hearings that he didn’t give Merrick Garland when he was nominated for the Supreme Court by President Obama, to scrutinize Session’s replacement.
Whoever he might select would be free to fire Mueller and end the probe sparing Trump, Trump Jr. Kushner, Manafort and anyone else from being held accountable for whatever collusion may have occurred with the Russians during the campaign.
Even more important to Trump, it would curtail the kind of scrutiny that his tax returns, business dealings and other matters might come under that could lead to prosecution once exposed.
If that scenario unfolds, it will be interesting to see what the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives and the Senate will do.
We will learn, once and for all, whether the price of their loyalty will be greater to Trump or the rule of law and the American people.