Sessions did not disclose two Russian envoy meetings

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

If you're reading the transcript, then you can see that he objectively said something that wasn't true. Your rationale for that = !@#$ery. Because I know for certain that when the shoe was on the other foot you didn't concern yourself with technicalities or what so and so meant to say.

 

In order to view Sessions statements as anything approaching perjury, you would have to believe that he wasn't answering the question within the framework which it was asked. For that to be the case, you'd have be viewing the back and forth through a very partisan lens.

[DC Tom]

I'm not "giving him the benefit of the doubt". I'm reading the transcript to his confirmation, and telling you that given the question he was asked, which framed his discussions as working within the Trump campaign, he clearly did not perjure himself. He could have spoken more clearly, and in a way that he didn't expose himself to political hackery, but he absolutely did not perjure himself.

 

And let's be clear, too...one of those meetings was less a "meeting" than it was "spoke to at a public gathering sponsored by a third party."

 

And there has to be some sort of reasonable standard at work here. Congressional leadership does meet with foreign diplomats with reasonable frequency. Any halfway rational person would make some sort of good-faith attempt to distinguish between a senator doing his job, versus campaigning for a presidential candidate. This isn't the Speaker of the House flying to Syria to conduct her own foreign policy, or a junior Senator making deals with heads of state during a week-long campaign swing through Europe, or a state governor conducting hostage negotiations with a foreign country during his campaign. This is a sitting senator and ranking committee member who can't reasonably be expected to put all his responsibilities on hold.

Then you must be a busy man these days.

 

Again, you're confusing criticizing liberal hypocrisy with defending Trump. Refer to your original irony.

[Dante]

 

If you're reading the transcript, then you can see that he objectively said something that wasn't true. Your rationale for that = !@#$ery. Because I know for certain that when the shoe was on the other foot you didn't concern yourself with technicalities or what so and so meant to say.

 

Then you must be a busy man these days.

 

https://theintercept.com/2017/02/28/the-new-yorkers-big-cover-story-reveals-five-uncomfortable-truths-about-u-s-and-russia/

 

The New Yorker’s Big Cover Story Reveals Five Uncomfortable Truths About U.S. and Russia

1. Obama and Clinton have radically different views on Russia.
2. The risk of a new Cold War is very real and very dangerous.
3. The U.S. media refuses to say if the U.S. interferes in Russia’s domestic politics.
4. The U.S. government still has provided no evidence of its theories about Russian hacking
5. Fixating on Russia continues to be used to distract from systemic failures of U.S. elites.

Follow link for details. Tough to refute a lot of this stuff.

 

The GOP shouldn't want Pelosi and Schumer gone. They're rotting the party from the inside out.

I know. They are laughably bad. I'm just pointing out the idiocy off all this fakery. Can't find anything legit to cause a scandal? Resurrect the our old cold war nemesis. Dems have to get more creative ! To bad McCain hates Trump or they could exploit this! He's dumb, or evil enough to meet with terrorists. Again!

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/02/22/mccain-illegally-in-syria-again-will-he-meet-baghdadi-again/

[The Big Cat]

In order to view Sessions statements as anything approaching perjury, you would have to believe that he wasn't answering the question within the framework which it was asked. For that to be the case, you'd have be viewing the back and forth through a very partisan lens.

 

I've already addressed this. He was asked a question under oath, and the answer he provided was untrue. Whether he meant to, or whether or not it slipped his mind is to decide whether he's a liar or just stupid.

[DC Tom]

 

I've already addressed this. He was asked a question under oath, and the answer he provided was untrue. Whether he meant to, or whether or not it slipped his mind is to decide whether he's a liar or just stupid.

 

It depends on what your definition of "was" is.

[The Big Cat]

I know. They are laughably bad. I'm just pointing out the idiocy off all this fakery. Can't find anything legit to cause a scandal? Resurrect the our old cold war nemesis. Dems have to get more creative ! To bad McCain hates Trump or they could exploit this! He's dumb, or evil enough to meet with terrorists. Again!

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/02/22/mccain-illegally-in-syria-again-will-he-meet-baghdadi-again/

 

The more they reach, the less credibility they have. But I'm not convinced that there's nothing there. There are too many dots.

 

If dems expose themselves in the process, great! Same standard applies to everyone. And if you're so !@#$ing stupid as to go on a witch hunt for stuff you're also guilty of, then I don't want you in my Congress.

Edited March 3, 2017 by The Big Cat

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

I've already addressed this. He was asked a question under oath, and the answer he provided was untrue. Whether he meant to, or whether or not it slipped his mind is to decide whether he's a liar or just stupid.

You believe he was stupid to answer the question within the framework it was asked?

[DC Tom]

 

The more they reach, the less credibility they have. But I'm not convinced that there's nothing there. There are too many dots.

 

If dems expose themselves in the process, great! Same standard applies to everyone. And if you're so !@#$ing stupid as to go on a witch hunt for stuff you're also guilty of, then I don't want you in my Congress.

 

So you want to just dissolve the entire legislature?

 

I'm...surprisingly on board with that. Buncha circus animals.

[IDBillzFan]

 

You missed it because there was no need to spit into the PPP ocean. Nice try though. Totally not like you to respond with YEAH BUT THE DEMS!

 

Were you pissed at them then? Are you pissed at the Repubs for doing the same **** now?

 

If you did more than spit in to the PPP ocean, you'd know the answers.

 

But as it is, since your presence here is really nothing more than a quick visit to chat nonsense and pass the time until it's time for dinner and you disappear for a few months, I'll let you go, too.

[The Big Cat]

You believe he was stupid to answer the question within the framework it was asked?

 

Yep.

 

If you did more than spit in to the PPP ocean, you'd know the answers.

 

But as it is, since your presence here is really nothing more than a quick visit to chat nonsense and pass the time until it's time for dinner and you disappear for a few months, I'll let you go, too.

 

You got a funny way of doing that. And I'll have you know, I'm killing time until I have to get my hair cut.

 

So you want to just dissolve the entire legislature?

 

I'm...surprisingly on board with that. Buncha circus animals.

 

Come on. Two or three of them have to be smart, right? RIGHT!?

Edited March 3, 2017 by The Big Cat

[TakeYouToTasker]

Yep.

 

This is an absurd position to take.

 

If this is truly your position, your issue should be with the wholly with Franken for asking poorly worded questions, not with the individual who answer the question as it was asked.

[The Big Cat]

This is an absurd position to take.

 

If this is truly your position, your issue should be with the wholly with Franken for asking poorly worded questions, not with the individual who answer the question as it was asked.

 

It's many things. Absurd it is not. But this is the kind of twisting in the wind that disappoints me so.

[Deranged Rhino]

So, why do you think the Russians put any effort or money into our elections?

 

Because, like every other major nation state, they engage in psyops and informational warfare.

 

The only difference between what Russia did this past election cycle and what they have done in previous elections is the coverage in the media. If you doubt that, do some more research -- and make sure you dig into the CIA's recent past as well to see how many times we've take a far more direct approach to undermining "free" elections.

 

 

Completely agree.

 

And the WaPo smear campaign is only serving to discredit them.

 

You're rolling in this thread, and I get where you're coming from -- but you need to do more homework on this issue. Your bias and conditioning are showing. The neo-McCarthyist narrative predates the election by several years. This isn't new -- it's just a change in the volume. It didn't start with Trump, nor his campaign members. It started in think tanks in DC clamoring for regime change in Moscow.

 

There are factions within the IC that have been trying to funnel us into a direct conflict with the Russians since at least 2011 if not 2013. These same people flooded HRC's campaign because she promised them No Fly Zones in Syria -- which could only be accomplished by bombing Russian anti-air sites on the ground. In other words, HRC's central campaign plank on Syria was to call for US pilots dropping bombs on Russian troops. That's open war with between the world's two largest nuclear powers -- and she was applauded in the media for taking such a stance.

 

Once she lost, that group which had been supporting her (openly) changed the game. Without the backing of the sitting US president, they began to implement the same kind of information warfare they're famous for in Europe, Asia, and Africa -- only this time they directed it at their own country. There has been zero evidence proffered to support this "Russia influenced the election" narrative, only speculations and unnamed sources citing unnamed methods. They realize they don't need evidence if they beat us over the head with the story long enough, people will believe it.

 

I'm not a Trump supporter, never have been. But I am against unelected intelligence officers waging an open coup in an attempt to subvert our democratic process. That's not something to be taken lightly, let alone applauded as many on the left are doing. So eager are they to assuage their post-election depression. What's a better distraction than a shiny new enemy who's hellbent on taking down the country?

 

Ask yourself this... who owns the Washington Post. Then, when you do that math, go back and look at their editorial coverage since he took over and pay special attention to the Russian narrative. You'll be surprised.

 

Then ask yourself this... If you really believe Russia interfered in the election and swayed the results, if you truly believe they have the capability to pull that off with their intelligence services -- what do you think our intelligence services are capable of? If the Russians could have done that, is it not possible that the US IC could do the same?

 

 

If he got off Twitter it would be a disaster for this country. He'd have more time to spend trying to be President.

 

:lol:

Edited March 3, 2017 by Deranged Rhino

[The Big Cat]

 

Because, like every other major nation state, they engage in psyops and informational warfare.

 

The only difference between what Russia did this past election cycle and what they have done in previous elections is the coverage in the media. If you doubt that, do some more research -- and make sure you dig into the CIA's recent past as well to see how many times we've take a far more direct approach to undermining "free" elections.

 

 

You're rolling in this thread, and I get where you're coming from -- but you need to do more homework on this issue. Your bias and conditioning are showing. The neo-McCarthyist narrative predates the election by several years. This isn't new -- it's just a change in the volume. It didn't start with Trump, nor his campaign members. It started in think tanks in DC clamoring for regime change in Moscow.

 

There are factions within the IC that have been trying to funnel us into a direct conflict with the Russians since at least 2011 if not 2013. These same people flooded HRC's campaign because she promised them No Fly Zones in Syria -- which could only be accomplished by bombing Russian anti-air sites on the ground. In other words, HRC's central campaign plank on Syria was to call for US pilots dropping bombs on Russian troops. That's open war with between the world's two largest nuclear powers -- and she was applauded in the media for taking such a stance.

 

Once she lost, that group which had been supporting her (openly) changed the game. Without the backing of the sitting US president, they began to implement the same kind of information warfare they're famous for in Europe, Asia, and Africa -- only this time they directed it at their own country. There has been zero evidence proffered to support this "Russia influenced the election" narrative, only speculations and unnamed sources citing unnamed methods. They realize they don't need evidence if they beat us over the head with the story long enough, people will believe it.

 

I'm not a Trump supporter, never have been. But I am against unelected intelligence officers waging an open coup in an attempt to subvert our democratic process. That's not something to be taken lightly, let alone applauded as many on the left are doing. So eager are they to assuage their post-election depression. What's a better distraction than a shiny new enemy who's hellbent on taking down the country?

 

Ask yourself this... who owns the Washington Post. Then, when you do that math, go back and look at their editorial coverage since he took over and pay special attention to the Russian narrative. You'll be surprised.

 

Then ask yourself this... If you really believe Russia interfered in the election and swayed the results, if you truly believe they have the capability to pull that off with their intelligence services -- what do you think our intelligence services are capable of? If the Russians could have done that, is it not possible that the US IC could do the same?

 

 

:lol:

 

I think you're assumptions about me are pretty far off the mark.

 

Nothing you've posted here is contrary to anything I believe or have posited here or elsewhere.

 

WaPo's coverage against Trump has been deplorable for the better par of year. And the DNC has been in turmoil longer than that. I want the DNC to be strong and to represent progressive ideas that can be sensibly enacted into policy (may be that's a unicorn, who knows?, this country has never tried it before). But the establishment and their general money whoring has managed to strip them of both their identity AND the grass roots movements they depend on to win elections.

 

I want the RNC to elect candidates who actually govern on the ideals and principles they campaign on. But that doesn't happen either.

[IDBillzFan]

You got a funny way of doing that.

 

Doing what?

[B-Man]

Sessions has rightly recused himself from any Justice Department investigations into the Trump team’s links to Moscow. Government officials ought to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Given that that standard has been honored mainly in the breach over the past eight years — especially in the Justice Department — Sessions’s decision is a marked improvement on the conduct of his most recent predecessors.

 

Since his nomination to serve as attorney general, Jeff Sessions has been subjected to a deluge of partisan attacks, almost all of which have been meritless. There is little reason to think that this one will prove different

[Deranged Rhino]

 

I think you're assumptions about me are pretty far off the mark.

 

Nothing you've posted here is contrary to anything I believe or have posited here or elsewhere.

 

WaPo's coverage against Trump has been deplorable for the better par of year. And the DNC has been in turmoil longer than that. I want the DNC to be strong and to represent progressive ideas that can be sensibly enacted into policy (may be that's a unicorn, who knows?, this country has never tried it before). But the establishment and their general money whoring has managed to strip them of both their identity AND the grass roots movements they depend on to win elections.

 

I want the RNC to elect candidates who actually govern on the ideals and principles they campaign on. But that doesn't happen either.

I may be off the mark on your stance in which case I apologize. But this Russian story isn't about the GOP vs the Dems. It's about fascism versus democracy. Do we want to let the unelected intelligence community subvert a proper (and legal) election just because they don't like the outcome?

 

That's what's at stake. The dems are backing the narrative for many reasons but primarily because both sides of the political aisle put party before country.

 

Here's a great article on this issue from January: https://theintercept.com/2017/01/11/the-deep-state-goes-to-war-with-president-elect-using-unverified-claims-as-dems-cheer/

[keepthefaith]

 

Completely agree.

 

And the WaPo smear campaign is only serving to discredit them. Trump's a dick. He's incompetent and he's surrounded himself with crooks, thieves and cronies. But the media has already jumped the shark and they're losing any credibility they'd have on the stuff he should really be held up for. Even the liberal Chicago rag thinks so: http://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/archives/2017/03/02/donald-trump-has-become-a-meme-for-tyranny

 

They were also way too easy on Obama. So they're doomed to lose the battle on both fronts.

 

But when this is your retort to an AG being caught with his hand in the cookie jar having lied under oath, when your inclination is to skew the point toward something else unrelated, I question your ability to call balls and strikes against both teams with the kind of accuracy you claim to have.

 

If Trump is judged on his style, approach and personality (which is what the left is mostly doing), he'll be harshly judged. What he has identified as the issues he wants to fix, is pretty solid. Time will tell if he's effective or not. I'm not falling into the trap of judging his style or the meaningless faux issues that are raised by his political and media opposition. I'll judge him on progress on the big issues which is mostly math.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

All three make a face -- but NO ONE corrects him until Dana Bash tries at the end, only to go back to agreeing with Lemon.

 

This is how a narrative is made.

Edited March 4, 2017 by Deranged Rhino

[DC Tom]

 

All three make a face -- but NO ONE corrects him.

 

This is how a narrative is made.

 

All three of them have producers screaming in their ear "Do not argue with him!" at that point, I'm sure.