June 13, 2017
The Sessions sessions.
Comment away. I'll be watching and will have something to say eventually.
ADDED: Sessions had a great mix of emotion and solid rational order. His opening statement hit every point and left nothing for the Senators to do but to act as if they hadn't heard him the first time. I kept saying "I know what he's going to say," and then he'd say it. He seemed to have it completely under control and yet he expressed anger and outrage with a keen edge.
I have one more thing I want to say, something I thought Senator Cornyn was getting at, but it didn't happen. I'll do a new post about that when I get a transcript.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
351 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 351 of 351See, even Ritmo's sockpuppets admit this is just a fishing expedition.
Oh. Glad to see you disagreed with the Clinton impeachment.
Depending on whom you're calling a "sock puppet," keep in mind that that could be construed as a personal attack.
- a fishing expedition.
I've got a wonderful cure for avoiding a fishing expedition:
Make the Trump administration as transparent as possible. As transparent as any administration or no administration has ever been.
Wouldn't that be wonderful!
But of course, they have way too much to hide. Either that or they just love behaving like they do.
These are things that attract even the lowliest prosecutor on Law & Order
Continuing our interrogation with Soviet man...
Soviet TTR: We have established that you are guilty based on your strong denials. And since your strongest denial was made to a black woman, you are racist and sexist too.
Senator Sessions: She made the most outrageous claims.
Soviet TTR: We accept your confessions.
"Whoever you are linking to at WaPo"
That's Jennifer Rubin:
aka what a conservative who is not a hack sounds like.
But, for the rest of ya,
carry on.
Will there be a separate blog post about Sessions' strange non-invoked invocation of executive privilege?
Soviet TTR: You keep behaving in this way.
Senator Sessions: In what way?
Soviet TTR: In a way contrary to the wishes of the Deep State. So you seen it the crimes?
Senator Sessions: We intend to pursue President Trump's agenda.
Soviet TTR: Thank you for confessing, comrade.
It looks like someone's Cold War scriptwriting is getting in the way of looking at what's happening at the hearings.
I did not disagree with the Clinton impeachment. "Plantiff has a right to any and all information that establishes predatory behavior in thebworkplace on the part of the defendant ".
What this means is that if Ritmo is accused of sexual harassment by a subordinate employee and happens to be sleeping with his secretary, the employee has a right of discovery, in this case to interview the secretary to determine if that sexual relationship is consensual or coerced.
If Ritmo and his secretary perjure themselves to deny the employee's legal right, they have committed a crime.
And for the Chief Executive to commit such an obstruction of justice is an impeachable offense.
Clinton was not impeached because he had an affair, he was impeached because his pattern of covering up crimes finally caught up with him. It was arrogance from getting away with so much for so long. All he had to do was show that his sexual relationship with his intern was consensual.
"Will there be a separate blog post about Sessions' strange non-invoked invocation of executive privilege?"
Good question. Maybe there is some small print policy that states Presidential communications are protected beyond Executive Privilege. It's a new one called the Trump Privilege, his lawyers just created just for him.
And got killed for it.
Sessions did great today. Harris is not using the Obama script if she has higher office ambitions using the Obama/affirmative action script.
"what happened at the hearings"
Nothing happened. 6 months of this and you still got nothing.
Isn't it weird how Inga and Ritmo keep showing up at the same time?
So I guess that means you are ok with Trump being Whitewatered, Mr. 8:03 PM.
Other than that, I can see that comment seems to have trouble avoiding any effort to make comments about other commenters.
My clip of the comment about the Bernie wing learning Hillary had cheated and told people about it (Wiki) didn't make the comment.
Seth Rich should not be forgotten.
Same commenter at 8:09 is again going personal.
Is it that hard for certain people to stop doing this?
Inga is in the house!
Please tell us more about the DNC-MSM talking points.
"Nothing happened. 6 months of this and you still got nothing."
That's completely false, imho.
The question is did they get "something" too early?
Having a DJT approval in the shitter, as it is now, is best for 2020. And, probably good for 2018.
That DJT in the shitter approval is the only thing the out of power Ds could ever hope to have. So, all's good for them today.
But, the implications of that "something" can only be tangibly extracted via voting. So, in that sense having achievements now is ephemeral. Maybe, that's what you were saying, but w/ less jabber.
"Will there be a separate blog post about Sessions' strange non-invoked invocation of executive privilege?"
People who watched the session know he never claimed privilege. He was asked several times because they were desperate for headlines claiming Trump precluded him from answering. But he declined to answer based on other criteria.
Once they figure out what those "other criteria" in Sessions' answer are, I believe the people would love to hear them.
Blogger Michael K said...
"Seth Rich should not be forgotten."
Should not be. But in order for the democrat party to stay together and under the control of the oligarchs they must keep their base diverted.
Fortunately for the DNC their base is made up of people like Inga.
"But he declined to answer based on other criteria."
Because headlines re them saying that they wouldn't answer based on "neener-neener you're a black lady I don't gots to tell you why I'm ignoring you, so F off" are so much better.
OTOH, the DJT base did like the Montana candidate for congress attacking a journalist.
I guess the question is are you retrogrades a big enough of the electoral college (since we all already know that you're not a majority).
"People who watched the session know he never claimed privilege. He was asked several times because they were desperate for headlines claiming Trump precluded him from answering. But he declined to answer based on other criteria."
We all know he wasn't invoking Exceutive Privilege, however he had no legal basis for not answering the questions regarding his communications with Trump. The next step should be contempt of Congress.
What would be really cool is to find someone in contempt of congress. With the bailiff equivalent stepping in and everything.
I wanna see a big tall bald sergeant at arms haul one of them away. Like Bull on Night Court.
"would love to hear them"
Yawn. Same thing you guys said night before Comey testified. Quite amusing really - libtards all taking the day off to gather at the pub for the "historic" moment when Trump would finally be laid low. Loved the video of the Left crying into their beer as their hopes were dashed again. Nice try Charlie Brown!
Even better, you and Inga were to embarrassed to show your faces here for a whole 24 hours. Instructive too, as most of thought you were immune to shame.
But you really want to set all that up again over Session's testimony today? No problem Charlie Brown. But this time, try getting a running start on the ball.
Maybe my legal understanding is inadequate but my take on Sessions refusal to answer is as follows:
1. the President has the right to executive privilege on the communications being asked about.
2. The President has not waived that privilege. He, in fact, has not been asked to do so.
3. It is not within Session's authority to waive the privilege on behalf of the President,
Refusing to answer based on these points seemed right, or all that Congress would need to do to by pass executive privilege is ask the other party to the discussion. This could not possible be correct.
If the committee wants the answers, they just need to request that the President waive executive privilege. But then they would have no talking points.
Sessions would be bawling "I resent you questioning mah honor! Release me sir!
To everybody who wants to argue privilege:
I challenge you to learn as much as you can about "Bank Regulators Privilege" and get back to me. It exists. It gets invoked. Courts accept the argument.
But somebody on this board will act like it doesn't because you've never heard of it. Who will it be?
Not a majority? If the popular vote determined the election, you would have lost that too.
to embarrassed to show your faces here for a whole 24 hours.
Either that or working, and otherwise occupied. Interesting way to spell "too," as well.
It looks like someone is engaging in endless personal attacks in an attempt to lure others into them.
Do most people "show faces" here? I don't even see an avatar, let alone a face, at 8:29.
Bank examination privilege doesn't exist.
Because I've never hear of it.
You're welcome, Birk.
Now, you can get back on topic.
Blogger Inga said...
"Sessions would be bawling "I resent you questioning mah honor! Release me sir!"
Despite there being absolutely no evidence of a crime or any wrongdoing Inga wants Sessions manhandled physically. Because she disagrees with him politically.
Radical leftists punch political enemies in the face. Moderate leftists want political enemies punched in the face.
Embarrassed? Why? Sorry, some of us don't buy into this is a "nothing-burger" canard. There are investigations ongoing whether you want to admit it or not. No one has been cleared of any wrongdoing. That you people think so is absolutely mind bogglingly naive.
And it's really poor logic on your part. Like claiming the Packers would have won the game if Total Yards Gained counted instead of Points Scored. Even a 4th grader knows that if you change the crieria for a win, both teams would have had entirely differnt playcalls. Why kick for 3 pts when you can add 5 yards to your total? You used to be smarter than this, what happened?
Hmmm, Argentina, rampant sock puppetry, and STDs rotting the brain... is that you Glenn Greenwald?
Fen,
BTW, it's cool that, re my comment, you only dispute my assertion that your folk are not the majority. Seems like ya coulda put up a bit of a fuss re being racists and fascists.
Despite there being absolutely no evidence of a crime or any wrongdoing Inga wants Sessions manhandled physically. Because she disagrees with him politically.
Is contempt of congress a form of wrongdoing?
Point of order: She wanted to hear his silly whiny cracklerin' voice, and mentioned nothing about the corrective action hypothetically taken against him to evoke it.
Technically, Session's silly whining cracklerin' voice is heard almost whenever he speaks anyway. But this would have made his words funnier ;-)
Lighten' up. Life's short.
We can be grateful that Kamala didn't resort to profanity, as is now the fashion among certain Democrats, herself included.
If manhandling is a form of wrongdoing, then can you legitimately accuse someone authorized to remove someone for contempt of congress of it?
Procedure is so philosophical. What is the sound of one branch of government falling?
The point, PB&J, is that most of the people arguing privilege know the basics at most. And that's not enough to make a point that sounds reasonable to a more sophisticated reader.
Grab your carry on.
"Embarrassed? Why?"
Obviously because after boasting and taunting during the week leading up to the ComeY Day of Doom, you hid out for 24 hrs to avoid eating crow.
Like the football fan who talks trash all week and then disappears when his team gets thrashed. You don't even have the deceny to face the people you taunted the day after. Worse, you come back spewing the same shit, different verse.
What happens to people found in Contempt of Congress? Are they patted on the head and given a cookie?
"The point, PB&J, is that most of the people arguing privilege know the basics at most."
And today, when pushed for detail, we learned that the US AG belly flopped into this group of "most people."
I think Holder did not get the cookie.
"No one has been cleared..." inverts the American justice system. The person arguing that perspective wants a conviction first and a trial later. I
I stand by my "Soviet Man" comments.
Is the problem with non-existent Trump/Russia non-actions that Trump hypothetically had non-meetings four decades too late?
Fen obviously doesn't seem to realize that Trump was shown to have lied 5 times during Comey's testimony. But I guess that just small peanuts to Trumpists. You people are very foolish to underestimate what is happening in these hearings and investigations. But you just keep telling yourself it's all over. Self delusion is the strong suit of Trumpists.
Oh. Glad to see you disagreed with the Clinton impeachment.
Except that William Jefferson Clinton committed felony perjury on national TV. Kinda hard to ignore, you know. But hard core Democrats seem to believe that the Clintons are, and rightly ought to be, above the law. Most people happen to disagree with that premise, believing, as so many Democrat Senators and Congressmen intoned during the Watergate hearings, that no one is above the law.
The intellectual capacity and honesty of trolls on this site is pitifully low. I guess some people like it that way.
3rd "seems like you could have put up a fuss re being racists and fascists"
Nah. We know you don't really mean it, you're just projecting. Besides, if you really cared about all that, you would quell your antifa fascists and your BLM racists. Amoung others.
The Left doesn't really believe in the things they lecture the rest of us about.
I just watched a 3-minute clip summarizing Sessions' testimony on WaPo. Someone left the cascading banjo notes off at the end, when Harris walloped him.
If I like my delusion of a Republican president, a Republican Senate and House, a majority of state governors and state legislatures...
Do I get to keep my delusion?
Or is this more like keeping a doctor?
Fen,
When BLM shut down a gay pride parade, who do you think Leftists rooted for? I was pulling for the rule of law, personally. But as it happened in a Leftist big city, that option was not on the table.
"Will there be a separate blog post about Sessions' strange non-invoked invocation of executive privilege?"
He explained it clearly at least twice.
If you choose to be willfully obtuse, I'm not going to put time into.coaxing you out of your cozy place.
"What happens to people found in contempt of Congress? "
Ask Lorretta Lynch, Lois Lerner, and Hillary's IT guy
Come on Soros Boiler Room 3, this is like shooting fish in a barrel. Maybe you can tag out for someone who went to law school?
"No one has been cleared of any wrongdoing. That you people think so is absolutely mind bogglingly naive."
Not a bit of evidence of wrongdoing has been offered in six months. That you people think there will be is gut bustingly hilarious.
Except that William Jefferson Clinton committed felony perjury on national TV.
Oh? Did the magick tv box make the evidence brought to Ken Starr more persuasive?
Did they roll out the brain scan with future technology that showed how Clinton's understanding of the term "sexual relations" was different from what's in the dictionary and therefore with a definition of it that I'm sure you must use in your own everyday speech?
Either way, it's amusing how many Ken Starr defenders are chiming in to basically roll ahead with their affirmation of special counsels like Whitewater, and Trumpvodka.
He didn't explain it at all. He couldn't cite what policy his refusing to answer was based on. He had no legal basis for not answering.
"He explained it clearly at least twice."
Right. He was asked if there was a written policy.
Answer: "I think so."
Carry on.
He explained it clearly at least twice.
If you choose to be willfully obtuse -
Sorry, I worked for a living today and only heard a summary on that part.
Plus, a number of us are a little less interested in taking every word that comes out of this administration at face value. A number of citizens agree and would probably call it willfully obtuse to give anyone in the administration any more credibility than they deserve, which seems to be exceedingly little, at this point.
We should never give into the guilty until proven innocent standard. That is anti-American. It is anathema to all right thinking people.
The side making the accusation has to show the evidence.
All you Soviets can keep your contempt for American law elsewhere.
And I don't know why you bother. Only 10% of lurkers follow an Althouse thread to the 2nd page. Who is your audience? Why are you even here? No one likes you, no one respects you, no one really cares what you have to say. Call your mother and catch up. Or get a dog. You could be using this time to learn a new hobby.
Kamala killed her chance at running for POTUS today.
There will be another. Someone smarter, more cunning, probably younger and prettier.
And here comes another to claim a presumption of innocence must be rejected when Republicans commit non-crimes.
""There is no legally binding basis for refusing to answer questions unrelated to an ongoing investigation unless the President is invoking executive privilege," William Yeomans, a 26-year veteran of the Justice Department and fellow at American University Law School, told CNN."That privilege is not absolute -- it can be overcome by a sufficient interest. DOJ traditionally does not discuss ongoing investigations in public, but ultimately must answer questions unless executive privilege is properly invoked and upheld."
The committee can hold Sessions in contempt when he doesn't answer questions -- but that could elongate the testimony and could potentially take months. The committee can also work with the Trump administration to come up with a solution."
Show of hands, please, on the percentage of Americans who consider this a cabinet with credibility.
"That you people think there will be evidence is hillarious"
I think they are in the last stages of denial where, being proven wrong about everything they clung to, they must build up a false narrative to believe in, an alternate reality where they can face themselves in the morning mirror and pretend they aren't sore losers who supported a coup attempt.
"Trump hacked! Session's flacked!" or something like that.
Blogger The Toothless Revolutionary said...
"I just watched a 3-minute clip summarizing Sessions' testimony on WaPo. Someone left the cascading banjo notes off at the end, when Harris walloped him."
Sure. Summary. Good work.
Keep supporting them TTR. Especially Harris. A truly corrupt piece of shit there. Keep watching your political movement be absorbed by corrupt shitheads who rigged the primary. 2018 and 2020 are going to be brutal for you. Not a single trump voter has changed their mind.
You have nobody to blame but yourself. You aren't as stupid as the rest of the tools drooling over this idiocy. Look at what the results of the last 4 elections have been for democrats nationwide. Have fun with your corrupt regional party. A federal government dominated by a single party does nobody any good.
Why did he come to this hearing so unprepared? He should've had the legal basis in hand, but instead he gave a bogus excuse. These Senators want the truth, not bullshit stonewalling.
"King: Has the president invoked executive privilege in the case of your testimony here today?
Sessions: He has not.
King: Then what is the basis of your refusal to answer these questions?
Sessions: Senator King, the president has a constitutional --
King: I understand that, but the president hasn't asserted it. You said you don't have the power to assert the power of executive privilege, so what is the legal basis for your refusal to answer these questions?
Sessions: I'm protecting the right of the president to assert it if he chooses. And there may be other privileges that could apply in this circumstance.
King: I don't understand how you can have it both ways. The president can't not assert it—You testified that only the president can assert it and yet—I just don't understand the legal basis for your refusal to answer."
There's another problem: Congress is not an investigative body.
They pretend to be, but that's mostly for Senators and House mice to set themselves up for runs for the Presidency.
Senator Burr, first to speak, should have said, "This is stupid. I'm gonna shut up, because a bunch of prima donnas like us, sitting behind a big bench like this, are not going to find out anything. Your time, Senator Warner."
The lefty trolls come out when the sun goes down. Hmmmmmmmm
I have apparently let Achilles down with the lack of my obligatory bashing of the Democrats today, even though the post is basically about the testimony of a Republican Attorney General. Perhaps tomorrow I will get that opportunity once again to prove my creds!
As for bashing Republicans - including this cabinet of the most obsequious brown-nosers ever recorded on tape, well, he's free to do that whenever the mood strikes.
Ritmo: "same person going personal"
Hardly. And it's a fair question. Why do you and Inga keep showing up at the same time, almost minutes within each other?
And why do you need to use sock puppets? How many aliases do you have here?
It goes to credibity and whether you are acting in good faith.
Fen,
It's a suuuuuuper doooooper sekrit.
BTW cons,
I'll let ya in on a Althouse tip. When ya see some saccharine sop that is clearly similar to a bunch of other stuff that has recently had the "law" tag, but this post is sans such, don't be surprised to see the off-the-rails-ness continue in the thread.
Even in retirement she doesn't want to sully the "View only LAW posts" thing-y.
-acting in good faith.
Uh-oh! Polygraph time being threatened by someone who doesn't understand that people who, unlike him, have avatars, can and often do change "handles" at whim. Or that web visitors, like circadian rhythms and daily work routines, have cycles! Why is it that you always start your parties at 9 PM, Ben? Hmmm. And then all your friends show up. I knew it! It's because you and they are NOT unemployed and prefer to start your recreation at the same time! Nefarious! Conspiratorial!
Oh Gooody, the legal experts showed up.
You can explain to me what crime Mueller is investigating. I asked several hours ago, no one offered up an answer.
Remember that exactly every govt cabinet level person of this administration, and the last administration have testified there is no evidence of President Trump or any of his associates having any questionable contacts with Russia agents, or any other foreign country. No collusion, also agreed are all the Democrats on relevant committees.
Also, obstruction of justice is off the table, because by law, Comey was required to report that.
Confusing the changing of a handle with a "sock puppet" basically means you flunked Internet 101. It's like calling someone who goes to court and legally changes their name a fugitive with an alias.
Then again, I never considered myself so boring as to forever stick with a meaningless three-letter misspelling of a common abbreviation for feminine.
Sessions should take care not to be accused of obstruction. This game of not answering will go on only so long.
"Sen. Martin Heinrich accused Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions of "impeding" the Senate investigation by not answering questions before the chamber's Intelligence Committee on Tuesday.
"You are obstructing" the Senate investigation, the New Mexico Democrat told Sessions, pushing the attorney general on whether he is invoking executive privilege to refuse to answer.
Sessions, who avoided claiming executive privilege during the Intelligence Committee hearing, said he is "protecting the president's constitutional right" to confidential communications. Several administration officials over the last week have refused to answer questions from senators but have not specifically invoked executive privilege".
http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-senator-accuses-sessions-of-impeding-1497384742-htmlstory.html
Be careful taking legal advice from the leftist media. By tomorrow morning there will be a dozen examples of cabinet heads of Democrat administrations exercising the exact same refusal to reveal Presidential communications, to the sounds of crickets.
The AG specifically has a special relationship with the President, as he is the Presidents source of legal interpretations, giving him similar privilege as a lawyer with his client. Again something that has been going for decades without comment from either side of the isle.
Blogger The Toothless Revolutionary said...
"I have apparently let Achilles down with the lack of my obligatory bashing of the Democrats today, even though the post is basically about the testimony of a Republican Attorney General. Perhaps tomorrow I will get that opportunity once again to prove my credibility."
You are letting yourself down. In 2018 there will be around 60 republican senators and in 2020 Trump will be re elected.
The democrat base is going to be drug along by the bureaucracy in DC trying to hold onto power and hide the fact that the intelligence community is spying on us all illegally. They could care less about you or me.
If you actually had a party that was focused on removing the corruption from the left it would force trump to do it from the right. But instead you support a stupid tilt at windmills only designed to keep stupid leftists distracted.
Way to be a dummy.
Why do you continue to use information brokers that have been wrong about everything involving Trump? As has been explained several times now, Sessions is not obstructing.
And the LA Times is leading you down the same bitter disappointig path yet again. What is this now, your 5th lap? Why do you keep falling for it?
Let me make sure I understand what is being asserted about Sessions "refusing to answer"
1. The President has executive privilege
2.. But unless he has explicitly invoked it about a conversation with one of his advisors, that advisor must answer questions about the conversation
This is absurd. Really absurd. Does the President have to stand outside the hearing room and jump in yelling "EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE" when a question never vetted by him is asked of someone he has had a privileged conversation with. Please.
If this is not what is being asserted is, what is? How is Sessions or any advisor to the President supposed to respond when asked about the content of a privileged conversation?
Blogger Ann Althouse said...
Will there be a separate blog post about Sessions' strange non-invoked invocation of executive privilege?
"He explained it clearly at least twice.
If you choose to be willfully obtuse, I'm not going to put time into.coaxing you out of your cozy place."
TTR, Ann is trying to help you not be stupid. You are falling for a ruse.
Whatever. You have fun with your dumpster fire of a political movement.
"Way to be a dummy"
I must admit, there are times I wonder if they are a false flag operation. No one could do a better job of discrediting the Left as they have done.
Thank you, Doug Weber. I was just typing out this comment:
I just figured out what this thread reminds me of. ...my pre-teen grandkids when they're bored & cranky and waiting for food. The bickering, and the button-pushing, and the inane back 'n forth that gets more and more stupid-sounding with each exchange, because no one wants to give the other the last word.
Anyone here really believe that the President of the United States doesn't have a fundamental expectation of confidentiality when he's discussing matters of national importance with his cabinet & other advisers (including personnel topics like, should I fire this guy)? AG Sessions is correct to say that he cannot violate that confidentiality without the permission of the President. If President Trump says, ok, then Sessions can submit follow up responses to this committee.
Executive privilege is a separate legal issue, and common sense would tell you that the President will not and should not waive the privilege without knowing with specificity what information he's agreeing to disclose. AG Sessions does not have the authority to do that in the President's stead, upon the first hearing of a question that seeks to intrude on the privacy of a Presidential conversation.
In my, granted, limited experience [IANAL, but have some familiarity] privilege is more typically invoked in response to written specific questions or requests for specific documents and/or specific information. Generalized "fishing expeditions" that omit specificity are typically objected to.
Who in the administration knew what questions the committee would be asking? One could surmise, but surmising is not sufficient basis for waiving the privilege in blanket fashion. If the President and AG Sessions review the transcript & the President decides that Sessions may respond to one or more of the committee's questions, then a follow up submission may be made.
It's not hard, people. Unless making it hard is the goal.
I think money could be made developing a bit to post Leftist comments. The decision tree is simple.
If D, then reasons for rightness.
If R, then wrong. QED
And, scene!!
A bot... Damn autocorrect had a seizure. Again.
"Privilege cannot be used as a shield to protect or hide potential impropriety or illegality. So we may have to go to court to pierce that privilege," Schiff told PBS.
Asked if he thought Sessions was in contempt of Congress in a separate interview on CNN, Schiff again asserted that lawmakers will "take whatever steps are necessary to compel," including legal action.
"I think the process would be negotiation with the White House," Schiff said. "We're going to demand answers to this. We're going to subpoena him to come back, if necessary, and if he doesn't answer, and we're not satisfied with the claim of privilege, then we'll take whatever steps are necessary to compel. That may ultimately result in litigation."
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/rep-adam-schiff-eyeing-legal-action-to-pierce-executive-privilege/article/2625897
When they don't go to court will anybody, including Representative Schiff, apologize for stupidity?
Quoting the LA Times, yep. Memories just don't work when you worship with the leftists. No thought about Comey outing the NYT and its February 15th story, reporting as fact, Trump associates had multiple contacts with Russian agents. Comey declared that story absent of facts. Yea, the media is not going to be limited by facts, not when a President has to be destroyed.
Schiff is talking out his ass, he will do nothing of consequence. He understands Executive Privilege and he understands why Sessions can't waive it on behalf of POTUS. He is just grandstanding to get his face on CNN.
Have you given any thought to the next false narrative you will cling to when this one sinks? I have some ideas for you.
"AG Sessions is correct to say that he cannot violate that confidentiality without the permission of the President."
Here, the AG has a written recusal re Russia stuff. So, he shouldn't have had conversation re Russia stuff as a reason re firing Comey. So, there would be no conversation, hence no confidentiality.
Duh.
Q to AG: Did ya talk about Russia stuff re firing Comey?
AG answer: No, I'm recused from such.
Ez Pz.
Blogger Inga said..."He didn't explain it at all. He couldn't cite what policy his refusing to answer was based on. He had no legal basis for not answering."
Not answering what, Inga?
What, in your opinion, was the most important question he wouldn't answer?
The correct answer is not:
"Well I can't say, under oath, if I violated the recusal, the reason is some policy that I think is written: "I think so." And anywho, me as a white geezer man and my two white geezer pals up there w/ you would like you to STFU you uppity black gal."
Racism!
That never gets old.
"Here, the AG has a written recusal re Russia stuff. So, he shouldn't have had conversation re Russia stuff as a reason re firing Comey. So, there would be no conversation, hence no confidentiality."
What I THINK you're saying is that you believe that AG Sessions should have been able to answer that Russia was not a part of any discussion with President Trump re: Comey.
However, if you watched or listened to the testimony (this is IIRC, and correct me if I'm wrong), AG Sessions typically would neither confirm nor deny the content, whatever the content question, of a conversation with the President, only perhaps that he & the President met on such and such a day.
He could not open the privilege and/or confidentiality door by commenting on the content of any conversation with the President. In fact, I believe that he was asked (by someone) if he had discussed the Russia investigation with ANYONE after his recusal, and he answered, "No."
If my recollection is correct, then asking him about Russia being mentioned during a conversation with the President was redundant at best, and a privilege and/or confidentiality trap at worst.
Again, IANAL & mine is not any kind of expert opinion, so I'll be very interested in what our hostess has to say about the testimony.
Murph is going to earn his junior achievement badge on
1) paying attention and knowing shit
2) thinking like an attorney
3) writing clearly
Murph must be driven off these comments pages!!
/sarc on that last sentence
BTW Brik,
How cool was it for AG, after getting the triple team play w/ two other white geezer men, so that he was back in control of Ms uppity black gal, to lecture the little lady from CA about his tenure, where his colleagues had said that he liked using the N-word and jabbering about the KKK, as US attorney in Alabama?
Althouse was impressed.
You too.
All the other cons here too.
Sounds like a home run!
Schiff is wrong, but CNN like to lick his balls.
Blogger Inga said..."He didn't explain it at all. He couldn't cite what policy his refusing to answer was based on. He had no legal basis for not answering."
Not answering what, Inga?
What, in your opinion, was the most important question he wouldn't answer?
Waiting...
OMG you people talking about the "basis" of Sessions not answering questions.
What do you think is going to come of it? Is the Senate going to arrest Sessions?
What do you think about people like Susan Rice, who refused to even show up?
When all your ploys fail you can always go back to that tried and true "racist" gambit.
It's gotta work.
It's just gotta....
Sessions should have just pounded the desk and said, "At this point, what difference does it make?"
That's how you go about not answering questions. Right Democrats?
Sessions shows his real character when he praises Trump on cue at the behest of the president in yesterday's cabinet meeting presser:
“It’s an honor to be able to serve you,” [Sessions said to Trump], describing the support he said Trump has from law enforcement across the country. “They have been very frustrated [and] they are so thrilled.”
Vomit! So this is the wonderful Trump cabinet. If Jeff Sessions will do what he did yesterday, he will lie about anything and everything - on or about Donald Trump. Same goes for Pence, Priebus, and everybody who were required by Trump himself to exaggerate for the Trump ego.
How many times has Hillary stated "I don't recall."
Shall we roll the montage?
"Sessions should have just pounded the desk and said, "At this point, what difference does it make?"
That's how you go about not answering questions. Right Democrats?"
When push comes to shove, I guess that HRC was smart enough to thread the needle. E.g., give testimony that dodged and weaved w/o being a lie, but still gave answers.
AG is a bit dumber, so he has to not say anything. Can't even say if he stuck to his (on paper) recusal. Can't even say why he can't say anything re his recusal, just that he "think[s] so."
Ok, maybe dumber politicians are better, cuase they're less able to fool us. OTOH, HRC was really, really dumb (e.g. thinking that the private server would shield her from scrutiny). And, Sessions is dumber than her. Presumably there's a tipping point where a pol is too dumb.
What do you think about people like Susan Rice, who refused to even show up?
6/13/17, 10:57 PM
Liberals: "It's OK when we do it."
That covers everything. Everything.
3rd grader writes: "it's cool that, re my comment, you only dispute my assertion that your folk are not the majority."
Ah, but dim bulb PB, it doesn't matter how many more votes you pile up in California and NY and Illinois. You can tack on 3 million more in those states - so what?
Without us flyover folk, you'll still lose.
Exile,
Yes and no re who loses.
If y'all keep voting to make me richer, it's hard to feel like a loser.
Just sayin'
Maybe if you type racism harder, somebody somewhere will be moved.
Jefferson Beaureguard Sessions III is an american patriot and was a true hero today.
In your face, TTR.
Gelatinous cretins like Jelly will die on a hill for Hillary.
Has Jelly ever suggested a single Dem alternative?
If not, I rest my case.
You know Jelly has ass-less chaps in his closet.
@exiled, the 2016 presidential election is precisely why the Constitution was written the way it was. Without the Electoral College a handful of very populous states could control the presidency forever.
Kamala Harris can hear destiny calling:
--Reasonably good looking--check.
--Mixed race (Afro-Indian)--check.
--Exotic first name (means lotus flower in Tamil)--check.
--Lived outside thew US as a child (Canada)--check.
--History of community activism--check.
--Swift rise through politics of deep blue state--check.
--Possibility of boosting turnout among Rising America Coalition--check.
--No accomplishments of note--check.
--Failed California bar exam--check.
--Unrelated to the professional wrestler Jim "Kamala" Harris--check.
--got her start as girlfriend of Willie Brown--(whut?).
--Accused of misusing campaign funds for personal perks--(whut?)
--Default mode: harpy--(whut?)
There's a Kamala in our future, no doubt about it. The Dems know a winner, and she's spelled K-A-M-A-L-A. Chris Matthews is already getting tingles. Many of us are getting the creeps.
Big M,
I'm ok w/ saying that we gots what we gots cause that's the way it was always planned. But, that's some serious wisdom at the founding: the rich folks in successful areas gets to feel like they're not trying to suck up all the dough while the loser areas fall, but the loser areas really insist that the successful coasters accumulate more and more.
Sounds good to me. Everybody's happy.
Kamala Harris is NOT the race-bridging politician that American needs. She has the exact same ethnic heritage that Jimi Hendrix had but she's completely trapped in Democrat political heritage and has zero cross-over appeal.
Running as a Republican, Donald Trump had cross-over appeal in spades. I have yet to see a Democrat even attempt as much.
she's completely trapped in Democrat political heritage and has zero cross-over appeal.
She does, however, have "cross my heart" appeal but then, so too did Nancy Pelosi.
Wow, what a wasteland these night comments seem to be.
BTW Chick,
Aren't all chaps ass-less?
I'm fairly sure that ass-less-less chaps are called leather pants.
Just sayin'
VU--
This is the way the world ends/ Not with a bang but a whimper.
Now, it goes w/o sayin' that ass-less leather pants are chaps.
Carry on.
VU--
Or more aptly:
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Exile and Big M,
It seems that DJT is suffering the mental anguish of needing to choose cake, but not gettin' to eats it too.
"President Trump told Republican senators Tuesday that the House GOP health-care bill was “mean” and he expects the Senate to “improve” the legislation considerably, according to several Republicans familiar with the gathering."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/trump-calls-house-health-bill-that-he-celebrated-in-the-rose-garden-mean/2017/06/13/ede11784-5060-11e7-b064-828ba60fbb98_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_trumphealthcare-810pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.abd656f8b437
Of course where the rubber meets the road all successful folks know that the moochers gots to be cut off. And now, DJT must be one of those to cut them off. But, he still remembers the good old days when he could be a detached bystander that blathered about wanting to make stuff better for everyone (while knowing that shouldn't happen, and wouldn't, thanks to others doing the policy implementation).
Of course where the rubber meets the road all successful folks know that the moochers gots to be cut off. And now, DJT must be one of those to cut them off. But, he still remembers the good old days when he could be a detached bystander that blathered about wanting to make stuff better for everyone (while knowing that shouldn't happen, and wouldn't, thanks to others doing the policy implementation).
Trump still has the advantage because he's got the Dick Gephardt and the Jim Webb Dems locked up: People who remember.
People who remember remember Jim Webb getting cut off in the first 2016 Primary debates.
The Dems essentially cut off a significant part of their base in those early 2015/2016 primary debates.
Ok Chick,
as long as that dick web stuff means that not-rich folks are gettin' what they deserve (i.e. not gettin' what they don't deserve), it's all good in the hood.
It's a hell of a lot harder to make a biz succeed than it is to stand around w/ a hand out. So, if dicking ass-less webs what it takes to ensure that this reality is understood and reflected by policy,
carry on.
It was "Forward" with Hillary then -- as it still is.
Looks like the Sessions angle and then the "racist" Gambit didn't work out for the lefties.
Might as well lob in healthcare stuff.
I wonder if hijacking the Sessions thread with healthcare is EXACTLY what Putin wants?
"Might as well lob in healthcare stuff."
Or, we're past 300 on the comment count, and Jeff chit chat has long ago hit the expiration date.
Your call.
I believe that I commented shortly after Trump decided to run that it was Dems who begat Trump. He was a reaction to a Hillary coronation.
If Dems so wish to dispose of Trump, they can do so in a heartbeat: They must only give up on Hillary. They must give up this charade about "The Russians" which only serves to enable Hillary to remain deluded about 2016.
Embrace 2017. Embrace 2018.
The Dems wouldn't know "cross-over" politics if it bit them in the ass. They only know "cross-over" national and gender identity.
"The Dems wouldn't know "cross-over" politics if it bit them in the ass. They only know "cross-over" national and gender identity."
Presumably the geezer X bigot base of the GOP is a somehow superior cross-over.
Whatever. You have fun with your dumpster fire of a political movement.
Hahahahahaaahahahaahaha.
Haahahahaaahahahahaha.
All for a loudmouth lifelong New York Democrat whose only success was ever in conning people.
Have fun with your savior of the Republican party.
If you actually had a party that was focused on removing the corruption from the left it would force trump to do it from the right. But instead you support a stupid tilt at windmills only designed to keep stupid leftists distracted.
Way to be a dummy.
Translation: I am VERY ANGRY that you have nothing better to say about Republicans than about Democrats - even with the savior that we have sent to lead them!
YOU go do something about Democrats. I've done enough. If Trump helps them before they can help themselves (apparently to tax cuts or pollution or slashing services or paying off the Saudis or whatever you think is the particular right-wing populist feel good moment you want me on board with), then so be it. My job is NOT to shill for the orange beeyotch or the party he rode in on.
The Dems essentially cut off a significant part of their base in those early 2015/2016 primary debates.
Oh yeah! Let's hear it for progressive poultry!
Do chickens even care about policy? Last I heard it was all just meaningless personality/culture-driven food fights driving the fair-weather foul vote.
Foul/fowl. Same thing when talking about polluting poultry.
Jefferson Beaureguard Sessions III is an american patriot and was a true hero today.
LOL! What was particularly authoritative about him was his whiny, nasal drawl. Porches everywhere across the south erupted in celebration!
Peter Dinklage has a more manly voice than your three-generation, double-Confederate namesake. By about two octaves of pitch.
Why did he answer a question on Ukraine and the platform?
Something that struck me was how differently Comey and Sessions treated their discussions with the President. AG Sessions essentially said that any private discussions with the President are privileged, with the privilege belonging to the President. Therefore, he (Sessions) couldn't respond to questions about such conversations because he wasn't the President, and therefore did not own or control the privilege. With the implication that if they wanted answers about what was said in such conversations, they should request the President to waive the privilege for specific aspects of specific questions of specific conversations. Comey, on the other hand, felt just fine not only writing memos outlining private conversations with the President, but then sending such a memo to a friend outside the FBI, DoJ, and federal govt, with the intent that it be leaked to the national media.
As a lawyer of sorts, I found Sessions' position eminently reasonable. And, if broken down, and taken in steps, probably makes legal sense to most lawyers. Which brings Comey's intentional disclosure of private conversations with the President into question. Were those conversations privileged? I don't see any reason that they wouldn't have been. They were explicitly private work related conversations with the President in his Article II, Section 1, Clause 1, Executive capacity. Who owns the privilege? The President. Was it waived? No indication of waiver, so the default assumption is No, Could Comey waive the privilege? Not without permission of the President who owns the privilege. So, how is Comey's disclosure of information protected by privilege owned by the President, without the permission of said President, not both unethical and illegal?
3rdGradePB_GoodPerson said...
Exile,
Yes and no re who loses.
If y'all keep voting to make me richer, it's hard to feel like a loser."
If you're winning under Trump, why do you incessantly whine here like a loser?
I am beginning to doubt your bragging about being rich. You sound like some millennial airhead writing vapid comments when things slow down at Starbucks.
Did the alleged third meeting take place on a grassy knoll in Dallas?
I am beginning to doubt your bragging about being rich
If you personally knew the kinds of clueless people swimming in VC money, you wouldn't doubt it for a minute.
Gen @ 8:9
Same methdealer?
Am I permitted to say that?
Birkel said...
When they don't go to court will anybody, including Representative Schiff, apologize for stupidity?
6/13/17, 10:06 PM
Ooh, ooh, can I answer that? NO.
exiledonmainstreet said...
I am beginning to doubt your bragging about being rich. You sound like some millennial airhead writing vapid comments when things slow down at Starbucks.
6/14/17, 6:07 AM
He got a copy of the Robb Report at the barber's once and thinks he knows what being rich is like. Really, it seems that Rs or Ds in power, rich people "like PBJ" can't lose. Which policy is going to harm him?
Is this thread still going?
Because, if it is, Beldar has a nice comment over at Patterico's blog that brings some knowledge and experience to the discussion of privilege....
http://patterico.com/2017/06/13/sessions-trump-and-executive-privilege/#comment-2006880
@Bruce Hayden Thanks for making one of the few rational statements on this thread. Sessions explanation was very clear and you have captured the essence and more. What puzzles me ( only a little) is why the Dems keep hanging onto Comey as if he were God. He has a track record of - as Sessions said - usurping power either within or from the DOJ. I thought his testimony cleared Trump on Russia, opened the gates on Hillary's servers again and put Lynch in the cross hairs. Comey is now going to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee whose Chairman, Charles Grassley, has not been at all happy with Comey's or the FBI's performance. According to the WSJ "Mr. Grassley said actions taken under the Obama administration would be examined by the committee as well, specifically whether former Attorney General Loretta Lynch acted improperly in a continuing investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while in government."
Post a Comment