Sessions did not disclose two Russian envoy meetings

[Tiberius]

 

I am saying the claim that there is a unified consensus within the IC that the Russians interfered with the election is false. There has never been a joint statement issued by all 17 agencies, and even within the agencies which issued statements (CIA, DHS, DNI) there is not a consensus. That's why BF got slammed repeatedly when he kept parroting that line a few months ago, it just ain't true. It's part of a narrative trick designed to make you think there's a consensus when there is none. Just like every story and leak so far is designed to make you think there is actual evidence being presented when it is in fact just unnamed sources citing speculations.

 

So, if there is no consensus within the IC, which there is not, then any story or talking head that claims otherwise is revealing their true loyalties.

 

The main people pushing this narrative publicly have been Clapper (a known liar and perjurer), Brennan (a known liar), and a host of "unnamed officials".

 

Brenner and Clapper do NOT and never have spoken for the entirety of the IC.

It's as much of a consensus as you will get on anything. There were agents in the FBI helping Whitey Bulger, too. But that doesn't mean entire FBI is corrupted. To raise doubt on the report because there is not supposedly consensus is to be trying to drag the discussion into the rabbit hole, imo.

 

You brought up BF, but he was right that even Trump admitted the Russians were involved in disrupting the election

[IDBillzFan]

 

Sessions: ‘I Have Not Met With Any Russians At Any Time To Discuss Any Political Campaign’

 

 

No lying.

 

This is the part that the PastaJoes of the world can't seem to grasp in even its simplest terms.

 

They argue the issue wasn't that he met with the ambassador, but that he lied about the meeting.

 

But he didn't lie about the meeting because they didn't ask only if he met with the ambassador, but if he met with the ambassador specifically to discuss the political campaign, and the answer is no.

 

There is no lie there.

 

But of course, attention to detail was never the strong suite of the left. I''m surprised they didn't try to impeach Trump after finding out he eats his well-done steak with ketchup.

[Deranged Rhino]

It's as much of a consensus as you will get on anything.

 

This is false.

 

 

There were agents in the FBI helping Whitey Bulger, too. But that doesn't mean entire FBI is corrupted.

 

I never said the entire IC is lying, you have made the claim that the entire IC is in lockstep agreement on this issue when they are not. The ones who are lying are the ones pushing the story that there is consensus.

 

There is not a consensus.

 

This is one faction of the IC, the same faction that's been pushing this narrative before Trump was even a candidate, trying to gin up a casus belli.

 

You brought up BF, but he was right that even Trump admitted the Russians were involved in disrupting the election

 

Everything BF proffered on this subject has been proven to be incorrect or misleading. He claimed there was consensus where there is none. He claimed the DNI speaks for the entirety of the IC when he does not and never has.

 

What the Russians did in the election, even if you take everything they're accused of at face value, is what we do every day to friends and allies alike around the globe. They did not change hearts and minds, they did not "hack" anything or swing the election one way or the other. Not even the most die-hard believers in the narrative being pushed are arguing they did.

 

Which begs the question, if what the Russians are being accused of doing didn't subvert our democratic process, didn't swing the election one way or the other, what's the fuss really about?

 

It's about a group within the IC who wants regime change in Russia and have for years. They have been actively engineering our political discourse since as early as 2012 to work towards that goal.

 

This is about a group of unelected intelligence officers subverting our democratic process -- but those officers aren't Russian. They're American.

[Magox]

No matter what the outcome as benign as a contact as it probably was, he perjured himself under oath.

[meazza]

 

 

But of course, attention to detail was never the strong suite of the left. I''m surprised they didn't try to impeach Trump after finding out he eats his well-done steak with ketchup.

 

This is impeachable IMHO.

[Deranged Rhino]

No matter what the outcome as benign as a contact as it probably was, he perjured himself under oath.

 

Which is fair and should be looked into. I'm not arguing against that, nor am I trying to defend Trump.

 

But we know that isn't the real end game here. Even if the outcome of those talks is revealed to be benign, no one pushing this narrative will remember/include that bit in any future articles where they trace the Russian connections through 45's administration.

 

They're building a 2D wall and telling us it's 3D.

 

This is impeachable IMHO.

 

Gotta forgive the guy, probably the only way to eat Trump steaks is to drown those bastards in ketchup.

[DC Tom]

 

This is the part that the PastaJoes of the world can't seem to grasp in even its simplest terms.

 

They argue the issue wasn't that he met with the ambassador, but that he lied about the meeting.

 

But he didn't lie about the meeting because they didn't ask only if he met with the ambassador, but if he met with the ambassador specifically to discuss the political campaign, and the answer is no.

 

There is no lie there.

 

But of course, attention to detail was never the strong suite of the left. I''m surprised they didn't try to impeach Trump after finding out he eats his well-done steak with ketchup.

 

But while we're complaining about the left's hypocrisy (which is very real, and very funny)...you also have to understand that this isn't politics-as-usual. The left isn't fighting Republicans.

 

They're fighting Nazis.

 

And they believe that, completely and fervently. Right up to the DNC and Congressional Democratic leadership, you have people indulging in Manicheistic political rhetoric of "good vs. evil," and attempting every parliamentary trick they can think of, no matter how trivial, to delegitimize the elected government, and labeling themselves "The Resistance." Because when you're fighting Naziism, anything is morally acceptable. Even violence (which they fortunately haven't twigged to yet).

 

Because they still don't understand why they lost the election. They view themselves as Die Weisse Rose group, a group of elite intellectuals fighting Hitler with rhetoric and protest. In fact, in tactics they bear a far stronger resemblance to Die Rote Kapelle and the German Communist Party. If they knew anything about the history of Weimar, they'd know they're backing the historical paradigm that created the Nazi party.

[Tiberius]

 

This is false.

 

 

 

I never said the entire IC is lying, you have made the claim that the entire IC is in lockstep agreement on this issue when they are not. The ones who are lying are the ones pushing the story that there is consensus.

 

There is not a consensus.

 

This is one faction of the IC, the same faction that's been pushing this narrative before Trump was even a candidate, trying to gin up a casus belli.

 

 

Everything BF proffered on this subject has been proven to be incorrect or misleading. He claimed there was consensus where there is none. He claimed the DNI speaks for the entirety of the IC when he does not and never has.

 

What the Russians did in the election, even if you take everything they're accused of at face value, is what we do every day to friends and allies alike around the globe. They did not change hearts and minds, they did not "hack" anything or swing the election one way or the other. Not even the most die-hard believers in the narrative being pushed are arguing they did.

 

Which begs the question, if what the Russians are being accused of doing didn't subvert our democratic process, didn't swing the election one way or the other, what's the fuss really about?

 

It's about a group within the IC who wants regime change in Russia and have for years. They have been actively engineering our political discourse since as early as 2012 to work towards that goal.

 

This is about a group of unelected intelligence officers subverting our democratic process -- but those officers aren't Russian. They're American.

Then show us the lack of consensus so we can judge its reliability. Who is disagreeing with the assessment?

[Deranged Rhino]

Then show us the lack of consensus so we can judge its reliability. Who is disagreeing with the assessment?

 

You can't prove a negative.

 

The proof is in the statements released from DNI, DHS and CIA. Go back and read those, see what they actually say instead of relying upon known CIA cutouts like the Washington Post and CNN to interpret them for you.

 

What you'll see when you read the information that's been released on this subject is that there is a lot of disagreement within the IC over pretty much everything. And the only "evidence" proffered in those documents are speculations by unnamed sources citing unnamed methods.

 

It's hardly convincing.... unless you're so despondent over the election that you're willing to believe anything that paints Trump as being a traitor/evil/Hitler.

[Tiberius]

 

You can't prove a negative.

 

The proof is in the statements released from DNI, DHS and CIA. Go back and read those, see what they actually say instead of relying upon known CIA cutouts like the Washington Post and CNN to interpret them for you.

 

What you'll see when you read the information that's been released on this subject is that there is a lot of disagreement within the IC over pretty much everything. And the only "evidence" proffered in those documents are speculations by unnamed sources citing unnamed methods.

 

It's hardly convincing.... unless you're so despondent over the election that you're willing to believe anything that paints Trump as being a traitor/evil/Hitler.

Ok, that's what I thought

[meazza]

Why are you engaging him when the DC Tom bot exists?

[Magox]

 

Which is fair and should be looked into. I'm not arguing against that, nor am I trying to defend Trump.

 

But we know that isn't the real end game here. Even if the outcome of those talks is revealed to be benign, no one pushing this narrative will remember/include that bit in any future articles where they trace the Russian connections through 45's administration.

 

They're building a 2D wall and telling us it's 3D.

 

Gotta forgive the guy, probably the only way to eat Trump steaks is to drown those bastards in ketchup.

 

I understand that the motives are politically contrived and I also understand that Russia is the new boogieman, Democrats have now reversed roles with many Repubs as the new "Neocons".

 

Putting that aside, he either A) lied or B) forgot, which castes doubt on his capacity to be AG.

[Tiberius]

Why are you engaging him when the DC Tom bot exists?

Stay away from the anti-Republican one!! He's too smart for us!!!

[B-Man]

 

But while we're complaining about the left's hypocrisy (which is very real, and very funny)...you also have to understand that this isn't politics-as-usual. The left isn't fighting Republicans.

 

They're fighting Nazis.

 

And they believe that, completely and fervently. Right up to the DNC and Congressional Democratic leadership, you have people indulging in Manicheistic political rhetoric of "good vs. evil," and attempting every parliamentary trick they can think of, no matter how trivial, to delegitimize the elected government, and labeling themselves "The Resistance." Because when you're fighting Naziism, anything is morally acceptable. Even violence (which they fortunately haven't twigged to yet).

 

Because they still don't understand why they lost the election. They view themselves as Die Weisse Rose group, a group of elite intellectuals fighting Hitler with rhetoric and protest. In fact, in tactics they bear a far stronger resemblance to Die Rote Kapelle and the German Communist Party. If they knew anything about the history of Weimar, they'd know they're backing the historical paradigm that created the Nazi party.

 

Very well put sir.

 

 

 

 

STEVEN HAYWARD: The Liberal/Media Freakout Rolls On.

 

Liberals are now chumming the waters with news that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had two undisclosed meetings with the Russian ambassador last year, which somehow makes him Alger Hiss,

 

 

 

 

Read the Questions – WaPo creates Sessions media firestorm over nothing

 

The witch hunt against President Donald Trump and his administration continues in the mainstream media. Last night, The Washington Post reported that Attorney General Jeff Sessions spoke to the Russian ambassador twice during the campaign, which he did not mention during his confirmation hearing.

 

Thing is, the article disproves the newspaper’s thesis. Sen. Patrick Leahy (VT) asked Sessions if he had been in contact with any Russian government officials about the 2016 election. Sessions said no.

Here is the headline:

 

 

 

Talk about click bait. Like I said, the article completely disproves the headline. But publications know that most people will not read past the headline. If they do, they may not make it very far, so go ahead and bury the lede.

 

Which is exactly what The Washington Post did four paragraphs down.

 

Read the question again:

 

 

Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) specifically asked if Sessions spoke to any Russian officials ABOUT THE 2016 ELECTION. He did not ask if Sessions spoke to Russian officials and left it at that. The Post even admitted as such IN THE ARTICLE:

 

 

 

Let me repeat myself: Leahy and Franken specifically asked about Russian communications with members of Trump’s campaign team, not as a senator.

 

If Franken and Leahy simply asked Sessions, “Did you have any communications with Russian officials?” then they would have a case.

 

But the questions were specifically about Trump’s campaign team.

 

 

 

Sessions spoke with NBC News about this fiasco and said he will recuse himself if he has to:

 

“I have said whenever it’s appropriate, I will recuse myself,” he said. “There’s no doubt about that.”

[IDBillzFan]

 

I understand that the motives are politically contrived and I also understand that Russia is the new boogieman, Democrats have now reversed roles with many Repubs as the new "Neocons".

 

Putting that aside, he either A) lied or B) forgot, which castes doubt on his capacity to be AG.

 

Or C) he answered honestly, that he did not meet with the Russian ambassador to discuss the election campaign, which is the context in which the questions were asked and answered.

[Tiberius]

 

You can't prove a negative.

 

The proof is in the statements released from DNI, DHS and CIA. Go back and read those, see what they actually say instead of relying upon known CIA cutouts like the Washington Post and CNN to interpret them for you.

 

What you'll see when you read the information that's been released on this subject is that there is a lot of disagreement within the IC over pretty much everything. And the only "evidence" proffered in those documents are speculations by unnamed sources citing unnamed methods.

 

It's hardly convincing.... unless you're so despondent over the election that you're willing to believe anything that paints Trump as being a traitor/evil/Hitler.

Proving someone disagrees with the assessment is not proving a negative, btw

 

Or C) he answered honestly, that he did not meet with the Russian ambassador to discuss the election campaign, which is the context in which the questions were asked and answered.

Except! He is already equivocating on exactly that! "They may have talked about current events" said a state department spokesperson

[boyst]

!@#$ you all for replying to gatorard

[Thirdborn]

I really imagine a room with Bob, big cat, tibs, meathead all sitting in their chair F5ing WaPo every 30 seconds with a stained white tee shirt, no pants and all feverishly masterbaitjng to anything they can find. In the back of the dim lit room is a picture spotlighted of Hillary. In chalk on the wall are all of the popular phrases and hash tags. Not my president. Rape culture. Resist. Hands up don't shoot. Free hat. Black lives matter. And then there is one fully glazed and crusty vagina hat that they found.

 

Their severe case of pleasuring themselves to ignorance has taken them down a dark dark path.

 

Well that's not creepy.

[Tiberius]

!@#$ you all for replying to gatorard

He says things we don't agree with!

[boyst]

He says things we don't agree with!

I don't agree with that