President Trump Fires AG Sessions

[BIAD]

I see they're quickly twisting it back to the narrative that Sessions' firing implies President Trump is
attempting to quash the 'Russia/Trump' investigation. But just as the usual mainstream format demands,
Sessions' self-induced recusal isn't mentioned until further down the article.

Trump-Russia probe 'under threat' after Sessions fired.

'The US inquiry into alleged Russian meddling during the 2016 election could be under threat after President
Donald Trump fired Attorney General Jeff Sessions, top opposition Democrats say.

Nancy Pelosi, who leads Democrats in the House of Representatives, called the decision a "blatant attempt" to
end or impede the investigation...'

Well she would. With a roll of her dentures, Nancy gazes across her eager Journalists and omits that Jeff Sessions
could've been dumped months ago.

'...The probe has been criticised by Mr Sessions's successor Matthew Whitaker.

The Democrats, who won the House in the mid-terms, have vowed to protect it.
Some Republicans appear to have shared the Democrats' concern over the future of the inquiry, which is being
led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Senator Susan Collins and Mitt Romney said it should not be impeded
in any way.

Mr Mueller is investigating alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, resulting in a series of criminal
charges against several Trump associates. Mr Trump has vehemently denied any collusion took place, and repeatedly
called for the inquiry to be shut down, calling it "the greatest political witch hunt in history"...'

If Sessions had removed himself from the Russian-probe at the beginning, why wait until after the midterms to fire him?
Could it be that other, less-reported acts were taking place under the control of the Attorney General?

'...Democrats see this latest move as an attempt to do just that.
"It is impossible to read Attorney General Sessions' firing as anything other than another blatant attempt by
@realDonaldTrump to undermine and end Special Counsel Mueller's investigation," Ms Pelosi -a front-runner
to become speaker of the House of Representatives following this week's mid-terms -tweeted.

She went on to argue that, "given his record of threats to undermine and weaken the Russia investigation", Mr Whitaker
should follow in Mr Sessions' footsteps and recuse himself. Her words were echoed by Democratic party Senate leader
Chuck Schumer, who added: "Clearly, the president has something to hide."

Why was Sessions fired?
The sacking followed months of Mr Trump criticising Mr Sessions, mainly for his decision to step aside from the Russia
inquiry in March 2017. Mr Sessions removed himself from the probe after Democrats accused him of failing to disclose
contacts he had had with the Russian ambassador as a senior adviser to Mr Trump's campaign.

In July 2017 Mr Trump told the New York Times: "Sessions should have never recused himself, and if he was going to
recuse himself, he should have told me before he took the job and I would have picked somebody else."...'

And here is the answer that if placed further up the article, would've reduced the piece and the opportunities to
imply dark goings-on in the White House. Wow... this Reporter is really subtle!

'...In a resignation letter, Mr Sessions -a former Alabama senator who was an early supporter of Mr Trump -made clear
the decision to go was not his own.

"Dear Mr President, at your request I am submitting my resignation," he wrote in an undated letter...'

Undated.

'What happens now?
Mr Whitaker can now assume control of the Mueller inquiry, which has been overseen by Deputy Attorney General Rod
Rosenstein until now. The president cannot directly fire the special counsel. But Mr Sessions's replacement will have the
power to do so, or end the inquiry.

Mr Whitaker expressed concerns over the investigation. In August 2017, he wrote a piece for CNN in which he stated that
looking into Mr Trump's personal finances, or those of his family, "goes beyond the scope of the appointment of the special
counsel".

He went on to call on Mr Rosenstein to "order Mueller to limit the scope of the investigation" or risk the inquiry starting
"to look like a political fishing expedition".
The deputy attorney general appointed Mr Mueller to lead the inquiry after Mr Trump fired FBI director James Comey in
2017.

The special counsel has also been investigating whether Mr Comey's firing amounted to obstruction of justice.
There has also been a question mark over Mr Rosenstein's future since it was alleged that he had discussed invoking
a constitutional clause to oust President Trump...'

BBC:

And Whitaker is correct, it's obvious that Mueller is struggling to find Ivan-The-Terrible in Trump's closet and has been
searching for any evidence that can be used as a negative. Sadly, such comments are offered by those in the media
of a 'certain narrative'

There is an analysis by Anthony Zurcher in the link, but it doesn't say anything except negative innuendo.
Like many of th mainstream media, it works off the 'Kavanaugh Scenario'.
To them, Trump is guilty, we just have to find the crime.