Many in the national news media are worried about the idea of a special counsel to investigate Hillary Clinton, even though Attorney General Jeff Sessions indicated this week he is not prepared to establish one to examine her possible role in allowing Russia to buy a Canadian uranium company.

During his Tuesday testimony on Capitol Hill, Sessions seemed to suggest it was unlikely he would appoint a special counsel to probe the 2010 deal. Some Republicans claim Clinton played some role in the sale, and have noted that the Canadian company, Uranium One, once gave money to the Clinton Foundation.

“We had an attorney general that stepped up and look like he was not going to allow a president or Republicans in Congress turn this Justice Department into some device for a tyrannical, autocrat in the making,” MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough said Wednesday in praise of Sessions.

That wasn't enough for many others in the press who rushed to claim that Clinton had not done anything worthy of investigating. Some said that inquiring into the issue any further would signal that the Justice Department was operating as a political tool for Trump and Republicans.

The New York Times said an investigation could only be interpreted “purely as revenge” for special counsel Robert Mueller’s ongoing probe into whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia in the election.

Others worried that Republicans would eventually pressure Sessions to launch some probe into the matter, even though Sessions insisted during the hearing he would not let politics dictate his actions.

“These demands for the politically motivated prosecution of Mr. Trump’s former political opponent are profoundly inappropriate and degrading to democracy,” said the Washington Post.

Rick Klein, political director for ABC News, worried Tuesday that the “whataboutism” that Republicans are displaying to direct attention to Clinton “is now dangerously close to becoming U.S. Justice Department policy.”

Trump has made public comments on several occasions expressing outrage that his associates are under investigation — a “witch hunt,” as he calls it — while Democrats and Clinton are not. And he has argued specifically that the uranium deal was cleared by an agency when Obama was in the White House deserves more scrutiny.

“Uranium deal to Russia, with Clinton help and Obama administration knowledge, is the biggest story that Fake Media doesn't want to follow!” he said on Twitter in October.

Many reporters, including Fox News anchor Shepard Smith on Tuesday, have concluded that Clinton played virtually no role at all, and said the terms of the sale did not result in the export of any U.S. uranium to Russia.

Sessions also seemed to downplay the importance of the sale. In a tense back-and-forth during the hearing, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, asked what it would take to launch a special counsel to investigate Clinton.

Sessions replied by saying, “It would take a factual basis that meets the standard of the appointment of a special counsel.”

Many observers saw that as Sessions mostly shooting down the idea, though his remarks came one day after the Justice Department said it would consider “whether any matters not currently under investigation should be opened” and “whether any matters merit a special counsel.”

Regardless of Sessions' answers, Vanity Fair’s Isobel Thompson wrote Tuesday that the ambiguity over a special counsel to investigate Clinton means that “the impartiality of the Justice Department is set to come under further strain.”