... a bunch of leaderless rabble blathering all sorts of policies which differ from Trump's stated and published policies.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/13/10-times-donald-trumps-cabinet-picks-directly-disputed-him/?utm_term=.cb94fe8bb827


Quote:

Three days of hearings, seven Cabinet nominees, countless contradictions of their boss-to-be's campaign trail promises. No two people are going to agree on everything, of course. But there was a noticeable trend during this past week of Senate confirmation hearings for Donald Trump's top picks to lead the federal government: Almost every single one of them directly contradicted Trump's promises on the campaign trail at least once — and some did it several times — on matters ranging from Russia to climate change. “The discordant notes that Cabinet nominees have struck as they have been questioned by senators suggest that a reality check may lie ahead for Trump,” writes The Post's Karen Tumulty. (Trump himself didn't seem to notice — or care. Here's what he tweeted early Friday morning, following several news stories highlighting the contradictions): Here are 10 of the most notable breaks between Trump and his potential Cabinet: 1. On investigating Hillary Clinton Sessions vows to 'recuse' himself on Clinton cases Embed  Share Play Video2:45 On the first day of his confirmation hearing, attorney general nominee Jeff Sessions said if confirmed, he would recuse himself from any investigation of former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, due to previous statements he had made about her during the 2016 presidential campaign. (Reuters) Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Trump's pick to be attorney general: “We can never have a political dispute turn into a criminal dispute.” Trump: This one comes with asterisk; Sessions disagrees with Trail Trump, but since Election Day, so does the president-elect himself. Still, Trump repeatedly vowed he would appoint a special prosecutor to look into Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state. His more recent comments suggest otherwise — and so does his attorney general nominee. In a tweet Friday, Trump called Clinton “guilty as hell.” 2. On trade Tillerson indicates he doesn't oppose Trans-Pacific Partnership Embed  Share Play Video1:08 Secretary of state nominee Rex Tillerson said at his Senate confirmation hearing, "I do not oppose TPP," a noticeable departure from President-elect Donald Trump's rhetoric on the subject, on Jan. 11 at the Capitol. (Reuters) Rex Tillerson, Trump's pick to be secretary of state: “I do not oppose TPP. I share some of [the president-elect] Trump's views regarding whether the agreement that was negotiated serves all of America's interests the best.” Trump: “Withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which has not yet been ratified” is the first step in his seven-point plan to “rebuild the American economy by fighting for free trade.” 3. On climate change Tillerson: 'The risk of climate change does exist' Embed  Share Play Video0:47 President-elect Donald Trump's nominee for secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, said he believes the risks of climate change "could be serious enough that action should be taken,” but he did not elaborate on what that action should be. (Photo: Melina Mara/The Washington Post/Reuters) Tillerson: “The risk of climate change does exist and the consequences of it could be serious enough that actions should be taken.” Trump: Trump recently allowed that human activity could be playing a role in climate change, but he has a long record of calling it “a hoax” and even “bull----". 4. On Mexicans Tillerson, in response to whether he thinks “Mexicans are criminals, drug dealers and rapists”: “I would never characterize an entire population by any single term at all.” Trump: Trump actually used several terms — including, specifically, the ones above that Tillerson shied away from: “When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best,” he famously said. “They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” 5. On Russia's geopolitical priorities Key moments from Gen. Mattis's confirmation hearing Embed  Share Play Video2:28 At the confirmation hearing for President-elect Trump's nominee for secretary of defense, retired Marine Gen. James Mattis warned about the threat Russia poses and vowed to stand up to Trump when necessary. Trump: Trump has repeatedly signaled his respect for Russia's priorities, dismissing U.S. intelligence officials' conclusion that its leaders authorized meddling in the 2016 election and downplaying its military action in neighboring states. (This summer, Trump insisted that Russian President Vladimir Putin was not going into Ukraine, despite the fact that Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014.) 6. On whether Russia was responsible for hacking Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.), Trump's pick to head the CIA: “It’s pretty clear about what took place about Russian involvement in efforts to hack information.” Sessions, on intelligence findings about Russian interference: “I have no reason to doubt that and have no evidence that would indicate otherwise.” Trump: Wednesday was the first time he conceded briefly that Russia was most likely behind the hacks into the Democratic Party emails. He has yet to recognize who ordered it or why it was done. 7. On how big a deal Russian hacking was ...

You poor idiot; do you actually think that Sessions' statement that he would recuse himself, mean Clinton would definitely not be prosecuted? No he specifically stated an independent prosecutor would be appointed if Clinton was pursued again.

This is what Loretta Lynch ethically should have done both with Eric Holder's Operation Fast and Furious and with Clinton.

Here is what Sessions REALLY said...(whilst being interrogated by Graham, the hopeful Ambassador to Narnia)...with Mother Jones spin on it...
During his confirmation hearing on Tuesday morning, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Donald Trump's pick to be attorney general, engaged in a curious exchange with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a member of the Senate judiciary committee. Graham asked Sessions a simple question about Russian hacking during the 2016 campaign, and Sessions...well, basically said nothing. As attorney general, he will oversee the FBI, which is part of the Justice Department, and the FBI, along with other national security agencies, has concluded that Russian intelligence mounted an extensive covert operation to influence the election for Trump's benefit. Yet Sessions had little to say on this matter.

Graham opened with a simple query: "Do you think the Russians were behind hacking into our election?" Sessions replied, "I have done no research into that. I know just what the media says about it." This was a Trumpy reply, for Sessions was referencing media reports, not the US intelligence community assessment released last week that definitively concluded Russia had hacked Democratic targets and disseminated swiped emails to help Trump. He could have said, "I know what US intelligence says." But he chose not to.

The exchange continued:

Graham: Do you think you could get briefed anytime soon?

Sessions: Well, I'll need to.

Graham: I think you do too. [Do] you like the FBI?

Sessions: Do I like them?

Graham: Yeah.

Sessions: Some of my best friends are FBI agents.

Graham: Do you generally trust them?

Sessions: Yes.

Graham: Are you aware of the fact that the FBI has concluded that it was the Russian intelligence services who hacked into the DNC and Podesta's emails?

Sessions: I do understand that. At least that's what's been reported, and I've not been briefed by them on the subject.

With this answer—referring to media reports—Sessions was still apparently trying to not say anything that could be interpreted as a sign he fully accepted the official findings as conclusive and accurate. Apparently, the fellow who wants to run the Justice Department did not bother to look at the intelligence community report on Russian hacking put out last week. (It's short.)

Graham pressed on:

Graham: From your point of view, there's no reason for us to be suspicious of them?

Sessions: Of their decision?

Graham: Yeah.

Sessions: I'm sure it was honorably reached.

Honorably reached? Not that it was an accurate evaluation. Sessions wouldn't say that. He was only stating that he believed that the FBI had not purposefully cooked the books. That was hardly a full embrace of the conclusions. The conversation went on:

Graham: How do you feel about a foreign entity trying to interfere in our election? I'm not saying they changed the outcome, but it's pretty clear to me they did. How do you feel about it? What should we do?

Stop the presses! Graham just said that the Russian hacking did change the outcome of the election. The small number of Republicans who have expressed concern about the intervention have generally stuck to the talking point that the result of the election should not be questioned. Yet here was Graham saying the Russian operation determined that Trump became president. Back to the tape:

Sessions: Sen. Graham, I think it's a significant event. We have penetration apparently throughout our government by foreign entities. We know the Chinese have revealed millions of background information on millions of people in the United States, and these, I suppose, ultimately are part of international big-power politics. But when a nation uses their improperly gained or intelligence-wise gained information to take policy positions that impact another nation's democracy or their approach to any issue, then that raises real serious matters. It's really, I suppose, goes in many ways to the State Department, our Defense Department, and how we, as a nation, have to react to that, which would include developing some protocols where when people breach our systems, that a price is paid even if we can't prove the exact person who did it.

In this word salad, Sessions, once again, would not clearly state that Russia was behind this penetration and that consequently Moscow should be punished. As a Trump partisan, Sessions could not recognize a reality that Trump himself has not accepted. That raises the question of how independent he will be as attorney general, if confirmed, and how vigorously the FBI will be able to investigate this Russian operation on his watch.