"The only new piece of information that has come to light is that political appointees in the Obama administration have sought to create a false narrative to make an excuse for their own defeat in the election."The quote appears in a NYT article titled "Obama Administration Rushed to Preserve Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking."
That article also contains material about Jeff Sessions, in case you want to comment about that. I've read the new material and don't think it adds up to anything. That's why I chose the Spicer quote for the post title. But if you want to discuss it, I've got an open mind. When I first saw the news alerts last night, I started saying "Jeff Sessions lied to Congress," even though I knew that wasn't quite accurate, and Meade pointed out that's how news stories like this are effective. Even when there's nothing misstated in the news article, it can work to put a false idea in your head.
Posts
264 comments:
1 – 200 of 264 Newer› Newest»Sharp comment by Meade. The Dems and MSM know how to play the game. But we now have Trump. I say Trump unleash the dogs of Justice and go full bore on Hillary and the Clinton Foundation. Punch back twice as hard.
I will remind everyone that Obama was probably sending emails to Hillary on her unsecure server.
I am more concerned that Jason Chaffetz and Kevin McCarthy are lining up as Deep State defenders
Politico is thrilled.
Chaffetz was a NeverTrumper during the election.
I agree it is time to go or Hillary.
A war of maneuver. "Hit them where they ain't."
Interesting take on the original quote -- it was a far more literal statement than its grammar suggests. Essentially Gertrude Stein was singing My City was Gone 50 years before Chrissie Hynde.
In the original context, then, "there [is] no there, there" doesn't mean the "there" never existed. It means that subsequent events have erased it. Very doublethink.
Is FBI still investigating corrupt slush fund Clinton Foundation?
Fine, Althouse. If there really is nothing there, an investigation ought to be simple, clean, clear, fast, and readily understood and accepted by all sides.
Let's git'er done. An independent investigation.
The Globalist Conspiracy's opposition government rolls along. Bannon understands the war is reaching a crescendo. The imperative is to impeach Trump NOW, or they face losing control of the North American Provence to deplorable Americans.
Already every Democrat in Congress is calling for Sessions to resign. Wow, how surprising (yawn).
If you read Sessions words, he never said he never talked to a Russian, he said he never talked to a Russian about the campaign.
In any case, everyone lies to Al Franken. Usually its "Yes, that's very funny, Al".
"Insurgency."
Who are these people?
Is there any parallel in American history to the sore-loser behavior of these people?
How can they possibly think any or all of this will help them make progress in 2018?
And when is the FBI going to complete their so-called "investigation"? I getting so tired of this boring shit. Its like Valarie Phlame all over again.
Most headlines are deceptive and misleading in nature. That's probably one of the biggest problems with the modern media and why the epithet "Fake News" is so difficult for them to wash off.
If there was only one lesson that I hope the general public would take away from the past 18 months or so, it's that you should never just assume that a simple headline is the truth. If you care about the topic, read the article and then your own research.
"Is there any parallel in American history to the sore-loser behavior of these people?"
They do it because there's no blowback, besides a few Republicans going "tsk,tsk".
And you have people McCain and Graham joining in.
Chuck said... [hush][hide comment]
Fine, Althouse. If there really is nothing there, an investigation ought to be simple, clean, clear, fast, and readily understood and accepted by all sides.
Let's git'er done. An independent investigation.
3/2/17, 10:11 AM
I understand your point, as in "let us put an end to this crap once and for all!" BUT...
a) If it an't so bad cause there is nothing to hide, hows about I invite you to a nice, deep 7 year audit by the IRS. What is there to worry about, you did nothing wrong!
b) What was that (was it) Skooter Libby(?) stuff whereas someone went to jail for lying to the FBI cause they mis-recollected something trivial?
In may cases the process is the punishment (ask those folks in Mead-land) and if someone WANTS to find something, they WILL find something and no matter how trivial the MSM will make it HUGE!
Remind me again which Party gave Russia the "Reset" button because, darn it, we'd been way too mean to them.
Peaceful transfer of power my ass. This looks like sedition by Obama and the Democrats.
And watching the authority figures that the Fake News puts on to push impeachment, it reinforces that Bush , Inc is 100% in the bag with Obama, Inc.. Both are protecting the Globalists from exposure as Traitors.
DJT will win or lose soon. Last night's speech has rattled the shadow government. They are gambling everything on impeaching him. And it is now or never.
I will remind everyone that Obama was probably sending emails to Hillary on her unsecure server.
Cleverly, he used a pseudonym.
"If there really is nothing there, an investigation ought to be simple, clean, clear, fast, and readily understood and accepted by all sides."
.
Yep, that's how it goes every time. Clean and honest with nothing but the truth pursued by all involved, not to mention a fair and balanced reporting by the media. That's why the Obama administration always welcomed and assisted those investigations of the IRS, Clinton, Fast and Furious, etc, etc. We got to the bottom of those like a cold glass of beer on a hot summer day in Benghazi.
Welcome to the new Red Scare. The Democrats new campaign slogan will be: Joe McCarthy was right!
"Let's git'er done. An independent investigation."
Where have you gone, Mark Felt -- a Democrat Nation turns a lonely eye to you. Woo woo woo. What's that you say, Lifelong Republican -- Mister Felt will be back any day. Hey hey hey. Hey hey hey.
rcocean said...
Already every Democrat in Congress is calling for Sessions to resign. Wow, how surprising (yawn).
Isn't that a lie? Every Democrat in Congress?
I have heard one, so far. Pelosi. Whose approval rating among Republicans is around 0.0%
I have heard other Democrats comment and NOT call for Sessions' resignation as AG. Rather, they have made requests/demands/suggestions that Sessions recuse himself from any 'Russian election interference' investigations. Which is a qualitatively different thing.
rcocean, there are 240 Democrats in Congress right now. Have you gotten 240 statements on this subject?
Don't recall Schumer calling for an independent prosecutor when Lois Lerner took the fifth.
Don't recall Schumer calling for Clapper's resignation when he clearly lied under oath about spying on Americans.
If anyone needs to recuse themselves from this investigation, it's Schumer.
bagoh20 said...
"If there really is nothing there, an investigation ought to be simple, clean, clear, fast, and readily understood and accepted by all sides."
.
Yep, that's how it goes every time. Clean and honest with nothing but the truth pursued by all involved, not to mention a fair and balanced reporting by the media. That's why the Obama administration always welcomed and assisted those investigations of the IRS, Clinton, Fast and Furious, etc, etc. We got to the bottom of those like a cold glass of beer on a hot summer day in Benghazi.
So you are saying that it ought to be war, in any matter of a Congressional oversight investigation? No more cooperation, no more meaningful investigations? Nothing but competing political posturing?
I happen to think that the Obama Administration's reaction(s) to investigative efforts by the Republican congress were disgraceful. And that the Obama-era stonewalling should not be emulated by the Trump Administration. Especially not when it is a Republican congress.
If you listen to all this hoo hah from the Dems, you realize that Mitt Romney understood the arc of history better than that noted seer Barack Obama. At the 2012 debate, Mittens said that Russia was our greatest geopolitical enemy. Barack sneered, "The 80s are asking for their foreign policy back."
As for me, I look at the Democrat's flailing (and mostly failing) and recall the line from the song "Me and Bobby McGee" that goes "when you ain't got nothing, you've got nothing to lose".
Until the Dems put their big boy pants on (and that includes Chuck and A Reasonable Man) they've got nothing.
Former American officials say they had two aims: to ensure that such meddling isn’t duplicated in future American or European elections, and to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators.
What they did was push it out to as many people as possible, thus ensuring it would be leaked and diffusing the ability to pinpoint the leakers. In the process they revealed sources and methods, and IC people should go to jail.
The Sessions story is such a nothingburger I'm embarrassed it was published. Apparently, Jeff Sessions wasn't supposed to do his job on the off chance Trump was elected and appointed him AG. Remember when everyone assumed it was Chris Christie's job?
It would be a good time to implement the European missile defense shield now that Congress is awash in newly minted Democrat Russian hawks.
Russians! Under my bed!
Desperation all over.
The French "deep state" are trying to knock out Fillon to rally all the moderates around a pseudo-moderate socialist Macron. And harassing Le Pen.
The House of Lords (mostly not actual aristocrats these days, just senior civil servants and business interests, the "deep state" embodied), and the welfare-dependent Scots, are in "hail Mary" play mode against Brexit.
The Swedes are bringing back conscription, I suspect in order to draft all those troublesome "youths".
etc.
But, "Lifelong Republican", I ask you: who is going to be the "independent"? and of what? Is the FBI independent? ask Hillary? Is the Justice Department independent? or is it filled with Obama loyalists who are about to lose their jobs under Sessions? Is the CIA independent? Or did some part of it loyal to Obama gather and spread this Russia lie? Is the NYT ("Where democracy dies in darkness") independent? Will it report fairly on the "independent investigation" just as it reported fairly on the campaign? and on election night? and on the transition? and on Trump's Cabinet picks? and on the prolife March? and on Milo? and on the Baltimore police? and on the John Doe investigation in Wisconsin? and on job loss in the heartland? and on the Chicago murder rate? Hahahahahahahahahhahaha - Comedy Central now located at Times HQ.
The only independence we see in the Dem-lackey class is independence from the facts. And the NYT doing "reporting" looks like Warren Beatty reading the envelope contents at the Academy Awards.
This is the very definition of a "nothing burger".
But sadly for the Liberals/Democrats, this is all they have.
Petulant lying, foot-stomping, and Godwinizing.
Birches said...
The Sessions story is such a nothingburger I'm embarrassed it was published. Apparently, Jeff Sessions wasn't supposed to do his job on the off chance Trump was elected and appointed him AG. Remember when everyone assumed it was Chris Christie's job?
It may be; a "nothingburger." But simple Mike Pence tv interview turned out to be a whole lot more than a nothingburger for Michael Flynn.
Your assertion that Sessions "wasn't supposed to do his job" is a classic straw man, right? Nobody has suggested that. What Sessions (presumably) was "supposed to do," was that when he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he was supposed to say, "Senator Franken, I did have a couple of meetings with Russian embassy staff, and even the Russian ambassador, as part of my routine duties on the Foreign Relations Committee; of which a couple of you are also members... We can supply written answers to any questions you might have on the content of the communications..." (Or some such thing.)
Comanche Voter said...
If you listen to all this hoo hah from the Dems, you realize that Mitt Romney understood the arc of history better than that noted seer Barack Obama. At the 2012 debate, Mittens said that Russia was our greatest geopolitical enemy. Barack sneered, "The 80s are asking for their foreign policy back."
...
And it is too goddamned bad, that more voters -- especially the Trump 2016 cohort -- didn't turn out to vote for Romney.
I know that there are people who voted for Obama '08, Obama '12 and Trump '16. What. The. Fuck.
I think the Russians have the best take:
"We see a highly emotional atmosphere," [Kremlin spokesman Dmitry] Peskov said, according to state-run Tass media. "But before making any evaluations, we should wait for everyone to calm down and the situation to stabilize."
This is as much a nothingburger as Hillary's emails were or Benghazi .... yet we heard about those in hysterics from people here, over and over and over and over and over and over.
Those emails were disqualifying! We cannot believe her representation of what happened!
It's all just partisan war, and your side is now on the denial end now. Probably shouldn't have sharpened all those knives for Hillary now that it's your guy as the main dish.
Consider that a good sleeper Russian mole would intentionally act like a Montgomry Alabama Methodist to disguise himself. Otherwise Boris Skyea from Leningrad would never have been able to slip into power with the ascendency we rigged for the Russian NYC agent.
But at least Boris costs little compared to the rubles needed to cover the mole from NYC's losses, divorces and bankruptcies.
And we have a Slav handler right in his bedroom. The only worry is that Kellyanne counter agent getting to our mole. She is a special talent.
Even when there's nothing misstated in the news article, it can work to put a false idea in your head.
I'm pretty sure that's what Jounalistism school is all about.
Haven't paid much attention to this story, as I don't really mind if Trump administration officials speak to Russia, or anyone else. Apparently the current meme is that Sessions spoke to a Russian official as part of his Senate job (which is fine) - but the problem is that he perjured himself during his hearings?
Any theory on why he would have done that? Why wouldn't he mention a fact that surely plenty of Democrats in the Senate knew?
Surely the obvious explanation is that he thought it was irrelevant. Which we agree it is.
Maybe I don't understand perjury very well. Are people really liable if they express themselves poorly?
I'm back to ignoring chuck.
I am more concerned about NeverTrumpers Jason Chaffetz and Kevin McCarthy who seem to be following a script written somewhere deep in the Deep State.
"Is there any parallel in American history to the sore-loser behavior of these people? "
Yes, The "Corrupt Bargain, " and it did not turn out well for the Federalists.
It is no accident that Trump has Jackson's portrait in the Oval Office.
"Are people really liable if they express themselves poorly?"
Read Franken's question and see if you can figure out what it was.
Here is an explanation.
If you think Sessions committed "Perjury" you need to go look up "perjury" which is:
'Perjury is the intentional act of swearing a false oath or of falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to an official proceeding'
Perjury must be INTENTIONAL and MATERIAL. Franken's question and Sessions answer were both so vague and wooly, it'd be impossible to classify it as perjury. When you cant' even be sure what the question meant, the answer can't be intentionally false.
He didn't perjure himself. He never talked to Russians about the election. Why would he have to disclose something he didn't do?
Another Democrat lie, "No other member of the Armed Services contacted the Russian or any other Ambassador"
Then you read the next WaPo sentence that they only contacted 19 of 26 senators! And how many of those were lying - like Macaskill?
I say Trump jails Sessions, then rounds up all the Obama administration's members that lied to Congress under oath over the last eight years. Is there enough room in the DC jails? Sessions could share a cell with Clapper and both Obama's AGs.
Truth is that this is a nothing burger. Does anyone believe anything that Nancy Pelosi says?
The real news is that Obama is setting up a shadow government in his DC mansion.
Crap like this is why I gave up Twitter. Judging by Chuck, I'm sure everyone is at 11 on the OUTRAGEOUS!!1!1!! Scale.
Russia, Russia, Russia.
The only game in town.
Drip, drip, drip.
Trumpies will always believe their guy as he drowns.
"So you are saying that it ought to be war, in any matter of a Congressional oversight investigation?"
I'm saying that whether it should be or not, it is. You need to accept that. It will not be fair, and it will be entirely one sided war in the media. We should still do investigations, but expecting the truth to be delivered to the public is not born out by experience.
The Democrats are doing Russia's bidding, they always have, but it weird because Russia isn't a communist country anymore. Woody Guthrie and Pete Seeger were unavailable for comment.
Presumably Chuck's happy with the Valarie Plame investigation--that's a good model that I guess Chuck would be glad to see applied to another Republican administration.
I guess Chuck thinks those of use who've seen the Left and the State abuse their power to investigate Republicans and protect Democrats over and over again are just whining or being disingenuous--we all must be "Trumpists" I suppose. I'm not sure if Chuck thinks Rick Perry or Ted Stevens or Tom Delay, etc, got bum deals. Or, if he thinks they did, I guess he thinks that's just the breaks for Repubs--those are the low-down dirty tactics of the Dems and it's the moral obligation of the Repubs to just take it and have their careers ruined, etc, while always doing the right thing themselves. "We're better than that," says Chuck, and isn't that darn convenient for the other side since they get to weaponize "justice" and the Repubs just have to smile and get their teeth kicked in.
This shit is never going to end. I don't care much about Flynn but I thought it was awfully stupid of "establishment" Repubs like Kristol and Goldberg to subtly cheer his defenestration--it should be obvious to everyone that "they" are going to go after anyone related to the Trump admin. with this kind of shit, unceasingly.
How many people did the Russian Ambassador meet with last year? How many other Senators met with the Russian ambassador last yeaer? How many ambassadors and other foreign government employees/agents did the Clinton campaign meet with?
I'm really starting to see the appeal of a "burn this whole thing to the ground" attitude.
Let's git'er done. An independent investigation.
There is no such thing. Only liars and fools think otherwise.
Birches said...
Crap like this is why I gave up Twitter. Judging by Chuck, I'm sure everyone is at 11 on the OUTRAGEOUS!!1!1!! Scale.
But that is such rank bullshit.
I am all over this blog's comments, saying that I think that Jeff Sessions' AG nomination was one of the best things Trump has done. Before that, I had said what fan I was, of Jeff Sessions, and that I was disappointed in his endorsement of Trump. And long before that, I had recalled how Sessions had been Borked in his own nomination for an Alabama federal district court judgeship.
I have not said that I think Sessions did anything wrong. I have not said that Trump's election was fraudulent, or that the Russians changed a single vote. I haven't said anything like any of that.
What puts me at "11," is the low-grade, low-information bullshit pro-Trump propaganda from anyone fighting a quality investigation of all of this, by a Republican congress or an independent prosecutor.
I have NOTHING against Jeff Sessions, personally.
Convict Hillary of one of those felony charges involved with mishandling classified materials that prohibit the convicted from ever holding public office again. Go after Chelsea, too. Hill told the FBI she had Chelsea and her maid print out emails.
@Henry,
I think the Russians have the best take:
"We see a highly emotional atmosphere," [Kremlin spokesman Dmitry] Peskov said, according to state-run Tass media. "But before making any evaluations, we should wait for everyone to calm down and the situation to stabilize."
You know we live in a funny world, where Tass makes more sense than the New York Times.
HoodlumDoodlum said...
Presumably Chuck's happy with the Valarie Plame investigation--that's a good model that I guess Chuck would be glad to see applied to another Republican administration.
I guess Chuck thinks those of use who've seen the Left and the State abuse their power to investigate Republicans and protect Democrats over and over again are just whining or being disingenuous--we all must be "Trumpists" I suppose. I'm not sure if Chuck thinks Rick Perry or Ted Stevens or Tom Delay, etc, got bum deals. Or, if he thinks they did, I guess he thinks that's just the breaks for Repubs--those are the low-down dirty tactics of the Dems and it's the moral obligation of the Repubs to just take it and have their careers ruined, etc, while always doing the right thing themselves. "We're better than that," says Chuck, and isn't that darn convenient for the other side since they get to weaponize "justice" and the Repubs just have to smile and get their teeth kicked in.
I disagreed, vehemently, with the prosecutions of Libby, Stevens, Perry and Delay. But only in the case of Libby was justice ultimately denied. Stevens, Delay and Perry were vindicated. And it gets weirder, with Libby, insofar as Valerie Plame Wilson says that the Trump campaign reached out to her, to get her to support Trump, "to get back at Karl Rove."
http://nmpoliticalreport.com/9304/you-cant-make-this-stuff-up-plame-wilson-says-trump-wanted-her-support/
Comanche Voter said...
As for me, I look at the Democrat's flailing (and mostly failing) and recall the line from the song "Me and Bobby McGee" that goes "when you ain't got nothing, you've got nothing to lose".
Wow.
Mis-attributing a Dylan quote? On the Professor's blog? Seems like a quick way to get yourself banned.
Damn I wish Sessions would say "the Russian ambassador and I spoke mostly about plans for our children's weddings, yoga routines, things like that."
Trump should ask for a team of special prosecutors to investigate the previous eight years. Holder, Lynch, Clinton and most of all Obama have a lot of explaining to do.
Chuck said...I disagreed, vehemently, with the prosecutions of Libby, Stevens, Perry and Delay. But only in the case of Libby was justice ultimately denied. Stevens, Delay and Perry were vindicated.
You disagreed, but they were "vindicated." Oh, so it's ok, then; good point. I mean, the Dems rammed Obamacare through with no Repub votes in part because Stevens lost re-election about a week after he was found guilty. The guilty verdict was overturned, though, so that's vindication. No harm, no foul, and hey, you disagreed at the time, so it's all good.
A ridiculously corrupt politically-driven prosecution cost a good man his reputation and his campaign for Senator, which gave the Dems the votes they needed (after using a few procedural tricks/bending the rules a bit) to pass an enormous and hugely consequential piece of legislation covering at least 1/6th of the U.S. economy...but he was ultimately vindicated. No big whoop.
These fuckers play for keeps, Chuck. I get that your dislike of Trump (for whom you voted) makes it seem like fun when the Media and Left (but I repeat myself) work up another attack against the Trump admin...but maybe it's not just "Trumpists" who see this kind of thing as another unacceptable attack on the Left's enemies using whatever means the Left finds necessary.
Eh, I'm sure it's worth it to you--so long as Donald Trump is humiliated and anyone who supported him is soundly defeated what does it matter what methods are used, right?
Mark said...
This is as much a nothingburger as Hillary's emails were or Benghazi .... yet we heard about those in hysterics from people here, over and over and over and over and over and over.
Those emails were disqualifying! We cannot believe her representation of what happened!
It's all just partisan war, and your side is now on the denial end now. Probably shouldn't have sharpened all those knives for Hillary now that it's your guy as the main dish.
3/2/17, 11:00 AM
You are so right! These things are ALL EXACTLY ALIKE. The SOS lies to EVERYONE but her daughter as to the cause of a terrorist attack against US assets resulting in the deaths of Americans is just like his talking to some Russians. Keeping government SECRETS on an unofficial, unsanctioned, unprotected email server is just like his talking to some Russians.
I have to believe stupid like that just has to burn.
The desperation by the Democrats is starting to smell like Napalm.
I love the smell of Napalm in the morning.
It's good to see an evolution in the Althousian definition of lying, even if that did take a Trump administration.
But Sessions testified that he "did not have communications with the Russians" and it turns out that he met with the Russian Ambassador once at a reception and another time in his Senate office.
Sessions's testimony was less than forthright and, even allowing for his claim that he was only answering in regard to discussion of issues of the campaign, is hard to read as other than a misrepresentation or a serious factual omission. Those on on his team may want to applaud him for that.
The real problem for Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump is not what any of us might think about those meetings, but what John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and at least one other Republican Senator might think. Because that's all the Democrats in the Senate need for an effective resistance, three Republican Senators.
Inference, innuendo, and wishful hoping. The baby hunt, as witch hunts past, isn't going well.
Paraphrasing Chuck: "I didn't just disagree, I vehemently disagreed."
A Few Good Men: Strenuously Object
So, Sessions met the Russian ambassador in an official capacity on record, and happened to meet him in a crowded room with other ambassadors. Baby hunt.
Blogger Chuck said...
"Senator Franken, I did have a couple of meetings with Russian embassy staff, and even the Russian ambassador, as part of my routine duties on the Foreign Relations Committee; of which a couple of you are also members... We can supply written answers to any questions you might have on the content of the communications..."
But how would that have been an answer to Franken's question which was:
"And if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russians in the course of this campaign, what will you do?"
Not about what did you do (past tense) but about what will you do (future).
How would the answer you suggest have been responsive to that question?
Isn't he supposed to respond to the question asked, not the question you think the doddering old fool should have asked?
John Henry
I've explained to my lefty friends, you CAN beat a dead horse. It just takes patience. Just keep hitting and hitting and hitting, he'll revive sooner or later.
This is simply the left with their media/establishment/"lifelong republican" co-religionists working together to undo an election.
It's that plain and simple.
If there were any "there" there it would have come out long ago.
The tactics are obvious and go back decades for the lefties and their pals. We will see if the same smear and run tactics used in the past will work this time.
Expect to see something like this every week or 2 for the next 6 months in what the left and their "lifelong republican" allies fervently pray is a "death of a thousand cuts" outcome.
But it won't be.
There is no there when your side, whichever side, does something. On the other hand if the other side, whichever side, does something it is fucking huge and dramatic.
So Sessions is a racist and homophobe and now a liar and perjurer.
Lock him up! Lock him up!
And let him get fucked in prison by a black homo.
"Those emails were disqualifying! We cannot believe her representation of what happened!"
Actually, nobody disputed the contents of the emails. John Podesta did not deny he had written the emails published by Wikileaks; he and the Dems wished to change the topic by focusing on how Wikileaks obtained the emails. Because the actual content of them is damning.
Here's the difference, Mark:
When there is a leak that damages the GOP, the media focuses on the content and not the process. Exhibits A and B: The audio recording of Romney's "47%" comment in '12 and the Access Hollywood vid.
When there is a leak that damages the Dems, the media focuses on the process and ignores the content.
The Left Bank of the Charles said...The real problem for Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump is not what any of us might think about those meetings, but what John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and at least one other Republican Senator might think. Because that's all the Democrats in the Senate need for an effective resistance, three Republican Senators.
Resist away. Who here will be surprised if/when McCain and Graham lock arms w/the Dem senators, smooching Warren and Schumer with heartfelt pride?
Blogger Left Bank of the Charles said...
But Sessions testified that he "did not have communications with the Russians" and it turns out that he met with the Russian Ambassador once at a reception and another time in his Senate office.
Jeez, Charles. He was asked if he had meeting "ABOUT THE ELECTION". He presumably answered correctly when he answered "No." He was under no obligation to answer a question that you might have wished asked: "Did you ever meet with Russians?" It is not his job to frame the questions that should have been asked.
And that was a questionaire, not testimony in front of the Senate.
You are either stupid or a lying shit. They are not mutually exclusive, you could be both.
John Henry
Titus said...
There is no there when your side, whichever side, does something. On the other hand if the other side, whichever side, does something it is fucking huge and dramatic.
So Sessions is a racist and homophobe and now a liar and perjurer.
Lock him up! Lock him up!
And let him get fucked in prison by a black homo.
3/2/17, 11:57 AM
I believe statistically speaking, most "homos" in prison, black or otherwise are not in point of fact homosexuals but instead are expressing their peer dominance in one of the few ways it can be expressed in such a structured environment that also lacks readily available opposite sex partners.
So if he were to "get fucked in prison by a black homo" odds are that the "pitcher" in that play would not in fact be a homosexual.
So there!
Chuck said...
Fine, Althouse. If there really is nothing there, an investigation ought to be simple, clean, clear, fast, and readily understood and accepted by all sides.
Let's git'er done. An independent investigation.
I agree 100%.
Lets investigate Fast and Furious. Benghazi. The IRS. Bergdahl. Israeli election tampering. The Clinton Foundation. Obama's email's to Clinton's private server.
Oh yeah and "The Russian ambassador talked to some people at some point" gate.
You are so transparently not a republican nor a conservative.
Everbody wundered why Jeff Sessions wuz alway meetin' that furriner at Pig-in-a-Poke Barbeque. Why, all Eufaula could talk-ah little else!
Wait! Aren't these the same people who use the word "McCarthyite" of their opponents?
Left Bank of the Charles: "But Sessions testified that he "did not have communications with the Russians" and it turns out that he met with the Russian Ambassador once at a reception and another time in his Senate office.
Sessions's testimony was less than forthright and, even allowing for his claim that he was only answering in regard to discussion of issues of the campaign, is hard to read as other than a misrepresentation or a serious factual omission. Those on on his team may want to applaud him for that."
Bull.
Your representation of the question asked and answered is itself grossly less than forthright. One has to ask oneself whether that is due to incapacity, incompetence or malicious intent.
For those who do not wish to depend too heavily on a doctored-up mischaracterization of the Q&A at issue, here you go:
"Franken: CNN just published a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president-elect last week, that included information that “Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump.” These documents also allegedly say “there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.” Again, I’m telling you this as it’s coming out, so you know. But if it’s true, it’s obviously extremely serious, and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?
Sessions: Senator Franken, I’m not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it.
Franken: Very well."
So, Mr "Honest Broker" Left Bank, can you show me any evidence or even supposed evidence of a "continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates" (in this case, Sessions) and the Russians?
Not to worry, the answer is "no".
But whatever it takes, eh?
On Wednesday, a Justice Department official confirmed that Mr. Sessions had two conversations with Ambassador Kislyak last year, when he was still a senator, despite testifying at his Jan. 10 confirmation hearing that he had no contact with the Russians.
Clearly Sessions lied under oath and should resign.
The most alarming part of that article is the comment thread in the New York Times. One said that Obama should have just declared the election invalid, and named Clinton the president. Talk about a Living Constitution! Most others trend in the direction of removing Trump from office. No express call for assassination. Yet.
At this point, the minority leader in the House and the minority leader in the Senate have called for the resignation of the Attorney General, not to mention their former colleague that most of them should know pretty well, without knowing anything. This has been driven by a WaPo story, a paper which had proven beyond any doubt to be a propaganda arm of the Democratic Party, which has uncovered basically nothing to the point that they should be embarrassed that they even published this assuming they had any ethics or professional pride. This is the sort of reaction I would expect from, say, the Soviet Union during the Cold War when they denounced everything of the dirty capitalists as a matter of course. This is not good faith.
YOU CANNOT REWARD THIS SORT OF BEHAVIOR!
What good is an independent prosecutor going to do here, Chuck? What possible results are going to come out of this? Here's the three most likely scenarios:
1. The investigation finds nothing. The Democrats denounce the findings and accuse the investigator of being a Russian Trump thrall stooge who literally drinks petrodollars and personally waterboards puppies.
2. The investigation finds minor violations that amount to basically nothing of note, though perhaps someone goes to jail for some tangential offense like with the Plame investigation, which the Democrats will then use to accuse the entire administration of treason.
3. The investigation actually finds something, which I would like to know. This would not be in the administration's best interest so they have no reason to pursue this. Furthermore, I'm not even sure I would believe it even if the investigation was on the up and up, given that the entire process is already poisoned beyond recovery with wild accusations and intentional exaggerations.
All of this over the fact that Sessions met the Russian ambassador twice, once with a group of other ambassadors and the other as part of his official capacity in the Senate, then answered a questionnaire question accurately, then gave a somewhat ambiguous answer to a rambling Al Franken question? Seriously? Do you really think that a truly non-partisan person - which would eliminate almost all of us - would see this as a reasonable course of action? Make unsupported accusations of treason based on the barest of threads and then treat this as something that should be taken seriously? WHY?
Left Bank of the Charles said...
The real problem for Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump is not what any of us might think about those meetings, but what John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and at least one other Republican Senator might think. Because that's all the Democrats in the Senate need for an effective resistance, three Republican Senators.
If you think it will make Trump less sympathetic to have a bunch of lifetime republican politicians team up with a bunch of lifetime democrat politicians to keep Trump from securing the border and reforming the tax code?
You have 2 years to turn back the tide of the election. You people can stand in front of the wave and yell "HALT" ... until there are 60ish republicans in the senate after 2018.
Best bet at this point is for Trump to call for a special prosecutor with enough cred for the Dems and GOP to do a full investigation of this whole thing. Get it started now, require a full report within a reasonable period of time, and get this thing over with. Then point out that this whole thing was a big nothing, pushed by partisans, and can't we all move on?
Unless of course there's something to these allegations and he's hoping people will get bored and change the subject.
So - there is a Russian ambassador in DC.
But he shouldn't be talking to anybody.
Trump has a great triumph. The next day we discuss the possibility that his AG is a perjurer or Russian agent. Coincidence?
No, the real story was why were transition members or potential cabinet nominees talking to Russian officials willy-nilly in December/January as if there would be no consequences? Literal stupidity.
Static Ping said...
What good is an independent prosecutor going to do here, Chuck? What possible results are going to come out of this?
Chuck is not a republican or a conservative. If he actually is it is worse because that makes him a traitor rather than an enemy.
All of this over the fact that Sessions met the Russian ambassador twice, once with a group of other ambassadors and the other as part of his official capacity in the Senate, then answered a questionnaire question accurately, then gave a somewhat ambiguous answer to a rambling Al Franken question? Seriously? Do you really think that a truly non-partisan person - which would eliminate almost all of us - would see this as a reasonable course of action? Make unsupported accusations of treason based on the barest of threads and then treat this as something that should be taken seriously? WHY?
I disagree. I think we should say sure, you can have an independent investigator for this IF we also appoint an independent investigator for Fast and Furious, Benghazi, The IRS, Bergdahl, Israeli election tampering, The Clinton Foundation, and Obama's email's to Clinton's private server.
No express call for assassination. Yet.
3/2/17, 12:08 PM
Even the dull witted savages who read the NY Times realize that certain things said online will get you into trouble with the Secret Service.
Brando said...
Then point out that this whole thing was a big nothing, pushed by partisans, and can't we all move on?
No. They are obviously acting in bad faith. You don't treat them with respect. They deserve none.
On Wednesday, a Justice Department official confirmed that Mr. Sessions had two conversations with Ambassador Kislyak last year, when he was still a senator, despite testifying at his Jan. 10 confirmation hearing that he had no contact with the Russians.
So, senators are prohibited from speaking to representatives from foreign governments? When did this rule come into being? Since when have we been at war with Russia?
Up & until war is declared or Congress passes an AUMF, members of Congress can talk to whoever the fuck they please. Can they pass on TS material? No, just like the rest of us. But, this idea that we don't have & that our foreign policy doesn't depend of bilateral relations at all levels of government with their foreign peers is just absolute nonsense.
As if the Democrats don't know this, & are often the strongest supporters of bilateral inter-governmental exchanges!
Alex: "No, the real story was why were transition members or potential cabinet nominees talking to Russian officials willy-nilly in December/January as if there would be no consequences? Literal stupidity."
Your comment represents "literal stupidity".
"willy-nilly"
What a crock.
Here's a nice flash from the past: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/02/obamas-secret-communications-with-mullahs-undermined-american-foreign-policy.php
snip: "So Obama secretly told the mullahs not to make a deal until he assumed the presidency, when they would be able to make a better agreement. Which is exactly what happened: Obama abandoned the requirement that Iran stop enriching uranium, so that Iran’s nuclear program has sped ahead over the months and years that negotiations have dragged on."
William said...
Trump has a great triumph. The next day we discuss the possibility that his AG is a perjurer or Russian agent. Coincidence?"
Nailed it, William.
It's also a complete coincidence that it involves his AG, who was preparing to clean out the sty these pigs wallow in.
Jesus Hashimoto Christ! When did the Democratic Party become the John Birch Society?
Achilles, we -- me, too -- should be careful about "an independent prosecutor." If I have used that term, it was probably careless on my part. I wouldn't want a prosecutor, independent or otherwise, with no good indication of wrongdoing. And I see none, with Jeff Sessions.
What I really want, and what I have mentioned, is an investigation.
From what I read -- same as what all of you read -- is that the FBI has very good indication that Russia-based agents hacked the DNC emails. That should be fully investigated and an independent prosecutor might be worthwhile. But since there aren't any Russian agents in the DoJ (are there?!?), maybe an "independent prosecutor" won't be needed.
"Literal stupidity," Alex?
Is there figurative stupidity?
Amazing how in denial you all are. Sessions is a goner within 2 days max.
Chuck: Stevens, Delay and Perry were vindicated.
No, they were not. Stevens lost his Senate seat, Perry more or less lost any chance at the Presidency, and Delay lost his House Majority Leader position and his House seat plus was in court for eight years with a conviction hovering over his head for several years. The courts ultimately found them not guilty but they were severely punished nonetheless over cases that were brought in bad faith. They were vindicated in only the most technical sense possible, like Joan of Arc was vindicated. This is an excellent argument to not give into the Democrats here, who are clearly acting out of bad faith.
"Clearly Sessions lied under oath and should resign."
I love the smell of lefty desperation.
Alex: "Amazing how in denial you all are."
LOL
This from the "Hillary has a 98% probability of victory".
Thanks the latest laugh.
HoodlumDoodlum: These fuckers play for keeps, Chuck. I get that your dislike of Trump (for whom you voted) makes it seem like fun when the Media and Left (but I repeat myself) work up another attack against the Trump admin...but maybe it's not just "Trumpists" who see this kind of thing as another unacceptable attack on the Left's enemies using whatever means the Left finds necessary.
Eh, I'm sure it's worth it to you--so long as Donald Trump is humiliated and anyone who supported him is soundly defeated what does it matter what methods are used, right?
Chuck's desire is the maintenance of the political status quo. That is all. Once you understand that context, everything Chuck writes makes perfect sense.
(Even the crazy, since the status quo will not and cannot be maintained.)
Angel-Dyne: "Chuck's desire is the maintenance of the political status quo."
With the dems on top and consolidating power.
The Sessions story is a sign of desperation, in my opinion. Trump really upended things Tuesday more than I had thought.
Drago: With the dems on top and consolidating power.
More precisely, continuing consolidation of the national neoliberal uni-party offering secure career paths for members of the gelded conservative(tm) "opposition".
I am almost certain that Sessions has a copy of Crime and Punishment.
The NYT has been flogging the Russian hacking of the DNC in numerous articles since at least June 14, 2016:
D.N.C. Says Russian Hackers Penetrated Its Files, Including Dossier on Donald Trump
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/us/politics/russian-hackers-dnc-trump.html
It seemed to be of no particular consequence until Wikileaks began releasing dumps of DNC emails:
July 24, 2016
As Democrats Gather, a Russian Subplot Raises Intrigue
"...Until Friday, that charge, with its eerie suggestion of a Kremlin conspiracy to aid Donald J. Trump, has been only whispered.
But the release on Friday of some 20,000 stolen emails from the Democratic National Committee’s computer servers, many of them embarrassing to Democratic leaders, has intensified discussion of the role of Russian intelligence agencies in disrupting the 2016 campaign.
The emails, released first by a supposed hacker and later by WikiLeaks, exposed the degree to which the Democratic apparatus favored Hillary Clinton over her primary rival, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and triggered the resignation of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the party chairwoman, on the eve of the convention’s first day."
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/25/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-emails.htmlw
OK, so two Russian hacking entities linked to Russian foreign or military intelligence (dubbed Dancing Bear and Fancy Bear) were identified as responsible for the hacking.
Known many months before the election. But certainly not of any major consequence compared to Hilary's own email problem.
But now resurrected by the NY Times in an attempt to link Trump or his campaign or his "associates" or Attorney General Sessions with somehow conspiring with the Russians to ensure Trump's election victory.
If any of this was true...and exposed before the election...Hilary would likely have been elected in a landslide.
Consequently, anyone with half a brain would not have touched this with a 10-foot pole. It is a conspiracy with very little upside but enormous downside.
But it is very clearly in the interest of both the left and the New York Times (same thing) to flog this idea anyway.
Akin to Trump suggesting that Ted Cruz's father was somehow linked to the Kennedy assassination by citing a National Enquirer article.
"No. They are obviously acting in bad faith. You don't treat them with respect. They deserve none."
Of course the partisans are acting in bad faith, and this has nothing to do with respect. It has to do with getting a full investigation done to (a) ensure nothing untoward did actually happen (and if you trust the Russians then good luck with that) and (b) to expose this whole thing for a nothingburger.
I will note that this sort of behavior is the sort of thing that happens in a country with a deep level of dysfunction. It is not unusual for the civil war to start far before this point. This is extremely unhealthy.
"He was under no obligation to answer a question that you might have wished asked: "Did you ever meet with Russians?" It is not his job to frame the questions that should have been asked."
I was reminded of this last week when I was being deposed. I knew what the atty was trying to ask, what he wanted to ask, but he wasn't good enough to ask the right questions the right way (wouldn't have helped, just would have made it shorter).. It was frustrating on my part, because of my natural inclination to be helpful. But it wasn't my job to do his job for him, as it wasn't Session's job to do Franken's for him. Putting a comedian on the Judiciary Committee, instead of an experienced attorney, just shows weak the Dem bench is these days. ,
"More precisely, continuing consolidation of the national neoliberal uni-party offering secure career paths for members of the gelded conservative(tm) "opposition".
Exactly. Graham and McCain being prime examples of the gelded.
While nothing will come of this idiocy, time spent fighting this crapola is time not spent implementing Trump's agenda.
I thought that one reason the Dems rushed out of that chamber after Trump's speech was because many of them undoubtedly soiled those pristine white outfits. But there were more than a few on the other side of the aisle who were wetting themselves as well. They have their cozy little spot at the trough and they don't want their slops taken away from them.
Sorry, Brando. A "full investigation" would be just another maneuver in the deep-state war on Trump. The point is to fight back, not give in.
Brando: "It has to do with getting a full investigation done to (a) ensure nothing untoward did actually happen (and if you trust the Russians then good luck with that)..."
The sound you hear are the goalposts being put on wheels for easier movement. Everyone knows the DNC was hacked, no doubt in an attempt to weaken the "Certain Victor!!eleventy!!" Hillary. The Russians were just as surprised as all the other institutions that Hillary did not win.
But that doesn't mean the dems scavenger hunt for a reason, any reason, for why they lost other than their own policies and incompetence should be rewarded by "well meaning" numb-skulls who "golly gee whiz just want to get to the bottom of these shenanigans!".
Brando: "...and (b) to expose this whole thing for a nothingburger.:"
Where, after 18 months of FBI investigations and an army of obama people all over the government hard at work to overturn a duly elected President is there the slightest evidence of Trump collusion with a foreign govt to throw an American election?
There isn't any. And there won't be any.
Brando said...
Of course the partisans are acting in bad faith, and this has nothing to do with respect. It has to do with getting a full investigation done to (a) ensure nothing untoward did actually happen (and if you trust the Russians then good luck with that) and (b) to expose this whole thing for a nothingburger.
Bullshit. Until they accede and cooperate investigations of Benghazi, Fast and Furious, The IRS, Israeli election tampering and all the rest they get nothing. Fuck them.
We are not dealing with good people. Stop pretending like we are. You are acting like democrats did when they gave us shit Rules of Engagement in OEF/OIF after Obama got elected. Do you want us to lose? Obama obviously wanted us to lose.
"Sorry, Brando. A "full investigation" would be just another maneuver in the deep-state war on Trump. The point is to fight back, not give in."
I don't see how--if there's a full investigation, it can find the sources of the leaks and discredit them. How would this help the deep state?
"The sound you hear are the goalposts being put on wheels for easier movement. Everyone knows the DNC was hacked, no doubt in an attempt to weaken the "Certain Victor!!eleventy!!" Hillary. The Russians were just as surprised as all the other institutions that Hillary did not win."
Then why not discover the full extent of what they did, and whether their hacking went any further? Did they get anything on the GOP too, that hasn't dropped yet? Or govt sites? The "not knowing" is a bit disturbing, particularly as Putin has a pattern of this sort of thing. Are you not a bit bothered by this sort of thing? I know I am.
"There isn't any. And there won't be any."
All the more reason to go forward then.
Here's why I come down on it this way--if this same thing was happening with Clinton, I'd sure be calling for a full investigation. By what standard can I say it's only appropriate if done to one side?
This nothing burger on Jeff Sessions is a great way to tell who wants Trump's drain the swamp actions stopped cold. The Bushies and the GOP's high level power brokers want Trump stopped more than the Obama Gang does.
Evil deception is on full monte display with no shame.
"Do you want us to lose? Obama obviously wanted us to lose."
What do you think we're losing if we investigate foreign powers hacking? Frankly that sort of reaction makes me think you actually fear an investigation will uncover something big. Surely you don't think that's the case?
How shrewd of the Russians to outsmart the pollsters, ignore the 90% Trump negatives from the leftmedia, outguess the Vegas oddsmakers and risk never-ending defamation from bedwetting Democrats and their mediaswine consorts, all by assuming they could bring about the defeat of Hillary the shoo-in. Lol.
Now we have the usual GOPe twits piling on the Democrat turnip truck. The Trump administration, including the DOJ, needs to tell them all to pias off. Obama and Holder would have.
To me, this is so blatant a distraction from Trump's strong speech....
But more so, the press and democrats are trying to say that you cannot meet with AMBASSADORS of other nations when you are in the Senate without it potentially becoming an issue? Even when, at the time, the senator had no formal ties to a presidential campaign?
This is what ambassadors do - they meet with people and talk. Should our senators and congresspeople decline such meetings for 2 year periods when there is a presidential campaign underway - which is damn near perpetually?
Flynn was ridiculous but at least he either lied or misremembered and thus you can fault him that. Sessions here is totally within his formal duties.
Brando: "Here's why I come down on it this way--if this same thing was happening with Clinton, I'd sure be calling for a full investigation. By what standard can I say it's only appropriate if done to one side?"
The standard that says that has to be some evidence, some, of an underlying crime.
There is none.
You are chasing ghosts. Ghosts of ghosts. All in service to the dem/media/establishment complex.
Since you are now officially on record in favor of investigations for which no underlying crime or evidence exists, what other non-crime/evidence free/clearly politically driven scenarios would you like to investigate?
TreeJoe: "But more so, the press and democrats are trying to say that you cannot meet with AMBASSADORS of other nations when you are in the Senate without it potentially becoming an issue? Even when, at the time, the senator had no formal ties to a presidential campaign?"
Brando and Chuck will soon be demanding investigations into bathroom visits assuming a foreign dignitary visited the same loo within the last 24 months.
It's one thing to witness the dems doing what all marxist/leftists do. It's quite another to see others openly supporting those efforts.
How long before Trump supporters begin protesting outside the Obama Bunker?
EXCLUSIVE: Barack Obama's close confidante Valerie Jarrett has moved into his new DC home, which is now the nerve center for their plan to mastermind the insurgency against President Trump
Obama's goal is to oust Trump from the presidency either by forcing his resignation or through his impeachment, a family friend tells DailyMail.com
Jarrett has moved into the 8,200-square-foot, $5.3-million Kaloroma mansion to work closely with the former president and Michelle Obama
Jarrett lived in the White House, dined with the Obamas, and helped shape his domestic and foreign policies
Obama cannot use his West End office, a post-presidency perk, for political purposes
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4271412/Obama-confidante-Valerie-Jarrett-moves-Kaloroma-
"Since you are now officially on record in favor of investigations for which no underlying crime or evidence exists, what other non-crime/evidence free/clearly politically driven scenarios would you like to investigate?"
If we had this exact same scenario with Clinton in the White House, while I guess you'd be saying "nothing doing here, stop chasing ghosts" I admit I'd be calling for an investigation to clear this up.
@ Chuck
Fair enough that you think Sessions is clean. I noticed that you said that in the other thread too. How does it look that the MSM keeps writing the same story every week and uses different supporting nothingburger evidence, like this Sessions stuff? It is embarrassing.
"How long before Trump supporters begin protesting outside the Obama Bunker?"
I'd like to but I work.
What puts me at "11," is the low-grade, low-information bullshit pro-Trump propaganda from anyone fighting a quality investigation of all of this, by a Republican congress or an independent prosecutor.
Wouldn't a little credible evidence of something to investigate be a normal prerequisite? Or are fishing expeditions armed with subpoena power a desirable process?
- Krumhorn
Again, I will point out for the 100th time- to date, not a single piece of verifiable evidence shows the Russian government did anything to damage the Clinton Campaign- not a single piece of evidence. Everything published to date is in the form of innuendo.
Birches said...
@ Chuck
Fair enough that you think Sessions is clean. I noticed that you said that in the other thread too. How does it look that the MSM keeps writing the same story every week and uses different supporting nothingburger evidence, like this Sessions stuff? It is embarrassing.
First, thank you for taking the time to read what I wrote.
I wish that I really knew that Jeff Sessions is "clean." I hope he is, but I really don't know. I always liked his placement as AG and I still do. I'd be bitterly disappointed if he were forced out.
The "MSM" has been a big thorn in our side for a very long time. How long has NeverTrumper Brent Bozell been running the MRC? 30 years? More? How long have WSJ opinion columnists been pointing out the national left-leaning media narrative? For a hell of a lot longer than Donald Trump has been a Republican, for absolute sure. Trump is late, to the conservative media party. For his being a purported billionaire, I don't recall Trump ever donating to NRO, the Weekly Standard, AEI, Heritage or the Manhattan Institute.
Brando wrote:
"If we had this exact same scenario with Clinton in the White House, while I guess you'd be saying "nothing doing here, stop chasing ghosts" I admit I'd be calling for an investigation to clear this up."
I wouldn't be calling for an investigation simply because of the paucity of the evidence for the underlying allegations about the election. You would have to make a prima facie case to me that the Russians hacked the election to throw the election to her, which no one has yet done.
Given the question that Sessions was asked and his reply, there is nothing to investigate there either. It definitely can't be proven to be perjury unless you can produce a recording of the conversations. Given the context of the question he was asked, a reasonable interpretation of his answer is that he had no contacts with anyone affiliated with the Russian government about the election, which is almost certainly true given Sessions' position at the time.
Brando" "If we had this exact same scenario with Clinton in the White House,..."
"..This exact same scenario.."
Yawn
How quickly you scooted to make-believe hypotheticals.
Perhaps we ought to investigate make-believe hypotheticals. After all, if you've done nothing wrong why would you oppose investigating these make-believe hypotheticals.
We'll call it the "Brando Moron Rule For Special Investigations And The Occult"
You almost have to diagram a reverse causal chain to follow the Democratic nonsense;
Hillary loses election <= Wikileaks publishes DNC emails <= Russians hacked DNC emails? <= Russians, in general, were interfering with election? <= Jeff Sessions spoke with Russian Ambassador at Heritage Foundation speech? <= Trump "surrogates" coordinated with Russians? <= Trump has tapes where he discusses with campaign surrogates Russian efforts to hack DNC to help him win the election (the Holy Grail)
I guess it flows something like that.
I did watch the Watergate hearings (thought they were extremely boring). And,still 40 years after Nixon resigned, it's hard to disentangle what Hunt and Liddy were doing and why.
Is this the Dem gameplan, when they get their butts whipped in an election? If so, it is awful tedious. I didn't know that shouting "Russians!" was such a reasoned argument.
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "For his being a purported billionaire, I don't recall Trump ever donating to NRO, the Weekly Standard, AEI, Heritage or the Manhattan Institute."
Jesus.
Fox Butterfield call your office.
Alternate Chuck: how can Trump be a billionaire? I've never seen him order a gourmet snowcone.
traditionalguy said...
This nothing burger on Jeff Sessions is a great way to tell who wants Trump's drain the swamp actions stopped cold. The Bushies and the GOP's high level power brokers want Trump stopped more than the Obama Gang does.
Haha. A great big FU to that.
If the Trump Administration were to treat the GOP congressional leadership as enemies (and they won't; unlike the mouth-breathing, Hannity-watching, toy-football-tossing Trumpkin crowd, the senior Trump leadership is too smart), I'd urge the GOP leadership to treat Trump as an enemy. See how that works. And see how Trump does in 2020 after four years of 1.9% GDP growth.
Oh crap. I accidently offered up a hypothetical about Trump and gourmet snowcones and you know what that means: we are moments away from Brando demanding a Special Prosecutor to look into improper ordering of snowcones.
Ah yes. The fevered dreams and wishcasting by "lifelong republican" Chuck for economic failure.
Well, not surprising since Chuck's preferred strategy is one of pre-emptive republican surrender, Democrat majorities and Republicans always a mere 3 elections away from impeaching a Dem!
This is why Chuck is highly sought after as a Michigan-focused political guru and savant.
Chuck said...
If the Trump Administration were to treat the GOP congressional leadership as enemies (and they won't; unlike the mouth-breathing, Hannity-watching, toy-football-tossing Trumpkin crowd, the senior Trump leadership is too smart), I'd urge the GOP leadership to treat Trump as an enemy. See how that works. And see how Trump does in 2020 after four years of 1.9% GDP growth.
3/2/17, 1:43 PM
Sorry but I think not, in that Trump won. If you are not working "with" him, you are working "against" him and should be treated as such. He is currently in a position to undo much that the liberals/progressives/Democrats/deep state have "F"ed up over these years and anyone NOT helping him do that is a liability and should be treated as such. I don't care what letter is after your name.
Drago said...
...
Brando and Chuck will soon be demanding investigations into bathroom visits assuming a foreign dignitary visited the same loo within the last 24 months.
Drago; let's leave Sessions out of it. And let's leave Flynn out of it. Do you think that there should be an investigation into the who/when/where/how/why of Russian agents' hacking and releasing private DNC emails?
Yes or no. If no, then why not?
What can possibly be any American's interest, in not attacking and exposing everything we can, about the Russians?
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "Do you think that there should be an investigation into the who/when/where/how/why of Russian agents' hacking and releasing private DNC emails?"
Be more specific as to the investigating bodies.
Bay Area Guy,
I think it all started flowing when someone in the Clinton Campaign decided to make use Trump's off the cuff remark about the Russians having her deleted e-mails (a half joke he used at multiple times during the campaign, but wasn't original to him)- the idea was to deflect attention from the hacked DNC e-mails' content to how they might have been illegally obtained by the Russian government. After that, people in the Obama Administration started leaking innuendo to support the claim. Of course, during the campaign, they couldn't go full throttle on this allegation because of Clinton's private e-mail server- but it was all they really could do to dampen the news cycle about the DNC and the later Podesta e-mails.
In addition, during the campaign, you can't go overboard about how the Russian government might be hacking the election because it appeared that Clinton was going to win handily, so you don't really want to fully open that can of worms if your side is expected to win. This is why the Obama Administration went to great pains publicly before November 8th to assure the electorate that no one really was trying to fix the election. Of course, after Trump wins, all the incentives change in an instant.
The CNN headline, chopping Graham's comment in half so that the context is completely different, is a perfect example of "fake news." And yet they refuse to acknowledge that they are guilty of that.
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "What can possibly be any American's interest, in not attacking and exposing everything we can, about the Russians?"
You are not one whit for exposing anything about the Russians.
You are simply fully allied with the dems in their desire to use the Russians hacking the DNC to bring about the end of the Trump Presidency.
As any and everyone can see.
All in order to get your beloved dems back into power no matter the cost.
It's transparently obvious and you are fooling no one.
Jonah Goldberg captures the dreams and wishes of the dems/establishment/"lifelong republicans" perfectly: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/445406/jeff-sessions-russian-spy-blown-cover
I knew that you couldn't and wouldn't answer that one, Drago. Nevermind.
The funniest thing about all this is Clare McCaskills furious scrambling over tweets she sent years ago that undermine her claims today regarding with meeting with Foreign ambassadors as a member of the Armed Services Committee.
Careful Clare! Brando will be calling for an investigation into your meetings!
I mean, since Brando is apparently and self-described all about "exact same scenarios" being treated exactly the same way!
Chuck: "I knew that you couldn't and wouldn't answer that one, Drago. Nevermind."
Ooooh.
So my asking you to clarify what bodies you wanted to investigate russian attempts at influence was enough to send you scrambling like the cockroach you are away from the interrogative light.
Who amongst us can even feign surprise that a "lifelong republican" such as yourself would behave that way.
Gee, it's almost as if you aren't a lifelong republican at all.
Chuck,
It would be great to know the specifics about Russian involvement, but given the facts that:
1) This has been happening forever, both by them and by us to various countries
2) There is no evidence that it had any impact on the outcome
3) There is also evidence (stronger, actually) of Ukrainian interference in Hillary's favor
and most importantly
4) MUCH more worthy of investigation and possibly special prosecution are the gun-running to the Mexican cartels, Hillary's email, the lying/cover-up by the administration after Benghazi, the IRS issues with conservative groups, the IT staff for the Democratic representatives, arguably EPA involvement in the Flint water issues, etc.
it would be a very poor decision for the President/Congress to expend their limited investigation/special prosecution capital (and there are significant practical limitations to that) on the Russian "involvement."
Here you go Chuckie, (assuming you are reading this and not instead downloading the latest talking points from the DNC and the Maddow Show): The current FBI and other intelligence agencies investigations along with the congressional inquiries are more than sufficient to nail down Russian efforts.
Period.
We do not require a special counsel and we do not require Sessions to recuse himself due to these latest, of a long line of, ridiculous politically inspired charges.
Drago said...
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "Do you think that there should be an investigation into the who/when/where/how/why of Russian agents' hacking and releasing private DNC emails?"
Be more specific as to the investigating bodies.
Aha! Okay. The FBI, first and foremost. The Senate Intelligence Committee, secondarily. And an independent prosecutor, if a majority of Senate Intel voted for it.
Members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:
Republicans
Richard Burr - North Carolina (Chairman)
James Risch - Idaho .
Marco Rubio - Florida .
Susan Collins - Maine .
Roy Blunt - Missouri .
James Lankford - Oklahoma .
Tom Cotton - Arkansas .
John Cornyn - Texas .
Democrats
Mark Warner - Virginia (Vice Chairman)
Dianne Feinstein - California .
Ron Wyden - Oregon .
Martin Heinrich - New Mexico .
Angus King - Maine .
Joe Manchin - West Virginia .
Kamala Harris - California
Do you think that there should be an investigation into the who/when/where/how/why of Russian agents' hacking and releasing private DNC emails?
How do you know the hackers and releasers were Russian agents?
All we know is that Wikileaks published hacked DNC emails. Full stop.
Since it's a crime to hack someone, then, Yes, let the FBI investigate. But didn't we already learn that John Podesta got phished, and gave up his passwords, thereby enabling the hacking? Perhaps, Podesta's hack is different than the DNC hack, it's hard to keep track.
In other words, Richard Burr, Marco Rubio, Susan Collins and Tom Cotton get to decide. "Little Marco."
Chuck: "In other words, Richard Burr, Marco Rubio, Susan Collins and Tom Cotton get to decide. "Little Marco.""
If you love these guys so much, make them do their jobs.
Are you saying your beloved establishment types can't be trusted to do their jobs?
What could possibly go wrong?
Drago said...
Chuck: "In other words, Richard Burr, Marco Rubio, Susan Collins and Tom Cotton get to decide. "Little Marco.""
If you love these guys so much, make them do their jobs.
Are you saying your beloved establishment types can't be trusted to do their jobs?
No, I am suggesting that they will get a chance to do their jobs and that consequently you and all haters of the "GOPe" have reason for concern.
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "For his being a purported billionaire, I don't recall Trump ever donating to NRO, the Weekly Standard, AEI, Heritage or the Manhattan Institute."
I'm gobsmacked.
Is it possible to be so clueless?
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A growing number of Republicans joined Democratic leaders Thursday in calling for Attorney General Jeff Sessions to step aside from an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 White House election. President Donald Trump said there was no need and he retains "total" confidence in Sessions."
Trump gives the correct response.
Fuck off, Chuck.
You are not one whit for exposing anything about the Russians.
You are simply fully allied with the dems in their desire to use the Russians hacking the DNC to bring about the end of the Trump Presidency.
Yup. The Democrats and their allies, like Michael Mann, have perfected the concept of "Lawfare" and took down Ted Stevens with it.
They and the GOPe are willing to see Sessions tormented for months because an idiot and fraud like Franken asked a circumlocution question that nobody could answer without confusion.
I am really annoyed with McCain and his wingman (boy?) Graham signing on to harass the president of their party.
This is beyond stupid and starts me wondering why Kerry and McCain became such buddies after Vietnam.
exiledonmainstreet said...
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "For his being a purported billionaire, I don't recall Trump ever donating to NRO, the Weekly Standard, AEI, Heritage or the Manhattan Institute."
I'm gobsmacked.
Is it possible to be so clueless?
Hey, sport. I'm not part of the team. Not your team, anyway. I'm on a different team. And we don't much like yours.
~I think Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, to an American mother.
~I think that science has settled the fact that standard childhood vaccines do not cause autism.
~I think that there were good reasons to invade Iraq, but more than anything, I do not think that the hundreds of high-level war planners "knew" that there were no WMD.
~I think NAFTA has been a good engine for economic growth. The Detroit auto executives know it.
~I think entitlements need reform.
~I think that health care reform is electorally perilous, and nobody should be promising anything that is all at once "terrific" and "wonderful" and that will cost less, and provide better coverage.
~I think that without Democratic intransigence on "a pathway to citizenship," a common-sense immigration bill can be constructed by Republican congressional leadership.
~We will never deport 11 million illegals in the next 4 years.
~We will never enact "a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States." Not for 30 days, not for a year, not for a New York minute.
~We cannot in good conscience enact a budget that contemplates spending a trillion on infrastructure, a 10% increase in defense spending, and with a trillion in tax cuts.
cubanbob said...
Trump should ask for a team of special prosecutors to investigate the previous eight years. Holder, Lynch, Clinton and most of all Obama have a lot of explaining to do.
3/2/17, 11:45 AM
^^^^This...and I also want to know what "flexibility" Obama had with Russia after the election in 2012!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsFR8DbSRQE
"Oh crap. I accidently offered up a hypothetical about Trump and gourmet snowcones and you know what that means: we are moments away from Brando demanding a Special Prosecutor to look into improper ordering of snowcones."
Yep, you sure got me pegged. Totally the same thing!
This is what I'll never get about "AlwaysTrumpers"--to them it's all about "my side, right or wrong, but let's face it always right because we cannot ever do wrong". No need to look at things from a disinterested point of view because that just weakens us all in this existential struggle.
If your fever breaks and you want to actually have a discussion, I'll be around.
The most preposterous thing about this is that two high-level Iranian government backers, including a former Islamic Republic official and another accused of lobbying on Tehran's behalf> entered the White House more than 30 times. Why? To "help the White House craft its pro-Iran messaging and talking points that helped lead to the nuclear agreement with Iran. These efforts were part of a larger pro-Iran deal "echo chamber" led by senior Obama administration officials who were tasked with misleading Congress about the nature of the deal."
"This included private, one-on-one meetings with Obama adviser Ben Rhodes, who helmed what he described as the White House's pro-Iran deal "echo chamber," as well as meetings with Malley and Colin Kahl, national security adviser to former Vice President Joe Biden. Parsi also met with the White House NSC's director for Iran, its senior director, legislative liaisons, and public engagement officials, according to sources familiar with the nature of these meetings."
We know that the Obama administration coordinated its foreign policy with the nation our State Department year-after-year calls the world's biggest supporter of state-sponsored terrorism.
Michael K said...
...
I am really annoyed with McCain and his wingman (boy?) Graham signing on to harass the president of their party.
...
Lindsey Graham's current term of office extends to 2020. He beat his Dem opponent in 2014 by 15 points.
McCain's current term of office expires in 2022.
"Hey, sport. I'm not part of the team. Not your team, anyway. I'm on a different team. And we don't much like yours."
Chuck, I wouldn't bother--you're arguing with a group of people that would have you believe that if the intel agencies were investigating Russian hacking into the GOP servers, various contacts between Clinton aides and Russia, ultimately leading Hillary to have to can her NS Adviser for some of these contacts, that these same people would be saying "nope, nothing to see here! Hillary says she's clean and she can investigate this all in-house!"
You may as well be arguing with a brick wall.
Brando: "This is what I'll never get about "AlwaysTrumpers"--to them it's all about "my side, right or wrong, but let's face it always right because we cannot ever do wrong". No need to look at things from a disinterested point of view because that just weakens us all in this existential struggle."
This is what I'll never get about the "NeverTrumpers"--to them it's all about "get Trump, right or wrong, but let's face it, it is always "right to get Trump anyway we can" because we cannot ever do wrong". No need to look at things from a disinterested point of view because that just weakens us all in this existential struggle to get rid of Trump at all costs."
FTFY
BTW, and for the millionth time, I supported Cruz.
But more importantly I'm a big fan of watching what the leftists have been doing since way back when and I will not go along with any more leftist and their allied "lifelong republican" smear campaigns.
So go ahead. Keep up your support of this transparent effort to undo an election, but don't expect the rest of us not to notice what you are doing.
Creative Writing Brando: "Chuck, I wouldn't bother--you're arguing with a group of people that would have you believe that if the intel agencies ...."
More hypotheticals.
More principled individuals might argue about focusing on the lack of evidence at hand. But that wouldn't serve your purpose, would it?
So yeah, we can expect many many many more hypotheticals out of you all in order to avoid the complete lack of evidence in this latest batch of democrat/"lifelong republican" smears against republicans.
Drago, it seems to me an odd accusation; that I want to "get Trump" after I voted for him.
I don't like Trump. I never did. I prefer Trump, to any Dem alternative. And I haven't proposed any basis upon which to legally "get" him. The only extent to which I would propose "getting" Donald Trump would be to primary him in the summer of 2020. I hope that happens. So there; the extent to which I would like to "get" Trump.
"I'm on a different team."
We know you are. You're on the Dem team. Actually, you're their batboy. You catch their fly balls and hand them their bats. You make yourself useful in the Dem clubhouse, picking up their towels and jockstraps. Just think, you might get a smile and a pat on the head if you do your job real well.
You're a good little batboy.
Chuck: "Drago, it seems to me an odd accusation; that I want to "get Trump" after I voted for him."
There is no proof that and I would submit you are lying.
But that is irrelevant. You are every bit Pelosi-lite in your stated desires.
Your jumping like gang-busters on the "golden showers" nonsense was the real giveaway long ago.
No biggee. Everyone knows what you and brando are all about. Advancing whatever the latest leftist meme happens to be.
BTW, and for the millionth time, I supported Cruz."
As did I. But let's not let that interfere with Chuck and Brando's fantasy that everyone here who takes issue with them is a fanatical Trump supporter who can find no fault with the man. Why should I, when you are so good at doing it that you see faults that aren't actually there? You're on Rachel Maddow's team, Chuck. You're on Franken's team.
Under Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, how much manpower and money did the US Intelligence Community spend to monitor meetings between the Russian Ambassador and US Senators?
I assume that the primary target of this monitoring was the Russian Ambassador -- not US Senators. In any case, some Intelligence officials spent time on this monitoring activity. Evidently, the Russian Ambassador was followed everywhere, and records were made of his meetings with people like US Senator Jeff Sessions.
Intelligence officials in the Deep State know exact dates and circumstances of such meetings and are able to leak that information to journalists. The officials' goal is to impress the American public that our President Trump's cabinet members are subject to RUSSIAN BLACKMAIL for violating THE LOGAN ACT.
Probably the Intelligence officials who monitor the Russian Ambassador in his BLACKMAIL activities work in the FBI, which is under the US Department of Justice, which was headed recently by Susan Yates, the notorious leaker and Trump-hater.
Yates was upset that Michael Flynn might be BLACKMAILED by the Russians for violating THE LOGAN ACT, according to a Washington Post article titled "Justice Department warned White House that Flynn could be vulnerable to Russian blackmail, officials say".
Sharing Yates' concern about Flynn being BLACKMAILED for violating THE LOGAN ACT were Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan, according to the article.
(quote)
In the waning days of the Obama administration, James R. Clapper Jr., who was the director of national intelligence, and John Brennan, the CIA director at the time, shared Yates’s concerns and concurred with her recommendation to inform the Trump White House. They feared that “Flynn had put himself in a compromising position” and thought that Pence had a right to know that he had been misled, according to one of the officials, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters. ....
Yates and other intelligence officials suspected that Flynn could be in violation of an obscure U.S. statute known as the Logan Act, which bars U.S. citizens from interfering in diplomatic disputes with another country.
At the same time, Yates and other law enforcement officials knew there was little chance of bringing against Flynn a case related to the Logan Act ....
Word of the calls leaked out on Jan. 12 in an op-ed by [Washington] Post columnist David Ignatius. “What did Flynn say, and did it undercut U.S. sanctions?” Ignatius wrote, citing the Logan Act.
(end quote)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-department-warned-white-house-that-flynn-could-be-vulnerable-to-russian-blackmail-officials-say/2017/02/13/fc5dab88-f228-11e6-8d72-263470bf0401_story.html?utm_term=.db07e6cf93c5
"So go ahead. Keep up your support of this transparent effort to undo an election, but don't expect the rest of us not to notice what you are doing."
That's absurd--first, nothing is going to "undo" the election. Second, the only reason you'd believe this would even hobble Trump or the GOP is if it turned out he or they actually colluded with Russia. I'm not far enough down conspiracy road to buy that (likewise, I also thought your guy was nuts with his "birther" crap--oh wait, his story now is that he just "finished" the investigation, a line you'd need plenty of laced Kool-Aid to believe).
And Drago, fair enough--I won't call you a "AlwaysTrumper" if you don't imply I'm a "NeverTrumper". I've been fair to Trump and I call them as I see them. In this case, I'm not even saying I think Trump colluded with the Russians--I think that's highly unlikely (he'd have to be a total idiot to do that). But I do think the Russians have been hacking into both parties' servers and have been working closely with Wikileaks. I'd like that investigated and think this should have nothing to do with partisanship. So Dems think they're going to get something on Trump? Who cares? Let them think it--if anything, an investigation will make them look foolish, but this "don't even go there!" stance from Trumpers just seems like reflexive partisanship or worse, a fear that there's actually something that will bring him down.
"No biggee. Everyone knows what you and brando are all about. Advancing whatever the latest leftist meme happens to be."
Yep, and there's the rank partisanship. You might consider that there might be some reason I'd want an investigation besides wanting to advance leftist memes.
Chuck said...Drago; let's leave Sessions out of it.
Yeah, let's leave Sessions out of it. Oh, wait, no--this entire discussion is based around what is happening to Sessions RIGHT NOW, very much putting him "in it." But forget all that and engage my pure hypothetical in order to demonstrate your own (moral) consistency.
Get right on that, Drago et al.
I'm curious to know how many times Chuck Shumer and Nancy Pelosi met with Russian officials during the 18 months of the Hillary Clinton campaign.
Brando: "Yep, and there's the rank partisanship. You might consider that there might be some reason I'd want an investigation besides wanting to advance leftist memes."
Then you are a buffoon, and in this case that's even worse.
And Drago, so I'm not coming across the wrong way, I welcome any criticisms and counterarguments you may have on this or any other issue. I don't think you're a reflexive Trumper, and can at least give my points the benefit of consideration. But likewise I'm not pushing any partisan agenda either way.
"Then you are a buffoon, and in this case that's even worse."
If that's what you have to believe.
...Aaaaand; Sessions is now recusing himself from all investigations on this subject...
Annnnd, Sessions stated quite clearly what any idiot child, Democrat and Chuck (but I repeat myself) would know if they actually listened to the original question and answer. He was asked at the hearing if he met with any Russian officials about the campaign. He answered no because he didn't.
Brando: "And Drago, so I'm not coming across the wrong way, I welcome any criticisms and counterarguments you may have on this or any other issue. I don't think you're a reflexive Trumper, and can at least give my points the benefit of consideration. But likewise I'm not pushing any partisan agenda either way"
You are providing verbal support (along with Chuck) to the side that is transparently attempting to undo a duly elected President on the basis of...nothing.
There is no moral, legal or rhetorical equivalence between our positions.
You have chosen your side whether you have the intellectual honesty to admit that or not.
Guess there's a there there. Not helpful when boss opines you're 'probably' telling the truth.
Chuck said...
"...or an independent prosecutor. I have NOTHING against Jeff Sessions, personally."
3/2/17, 11:24 AM
Chuck said...
Achilles, we -- me, too -- should be careful about "an independent prosecutor. If I have used that term, it was probably careless on my part.
3/2/17, 12:20 PM
Yeah, "if". Jackass.
Annnnnd by the way, Chuck, the CNN story that Franken was referencing back on January 10th was the fake news dossier that Buzzfeed published. It has, of course, been proven to be complete garbage.
This entire story is as fraudulent as you are.
So now that we know a couple Army Colonels were in the room with Sessions when he met with the Russian Ambassador, looks like the left and Chuck and Brando are going to have to smear and destroy those guys as well.
But hey, if that's what we have to do to make the dems feel better about their loss, it's totally worth it.
exiledonmainstreet: "Annnnnd by the way, Chuck, the CNN story that Franken was referencing back on January 10th was the fake news dossier that Buzzfeed published. It has, of course, been proven to be complete garbage."
That obviously fake and moronic dossier, btw, was something "lifelong republican" Chuck had no difficulty embracing and celebrating.
Blogger exiledonmainstreet said...
Annnnd, Sessions stated quite clearly what any idiot child, Democrat and Chuck (but I repeat myself) would know if they actually listened to the original question and answer. He was asked at the hearing if he met with any Russian officials about the campaign. He answered no because he didn't.
No; that is incorrect. Franken asked Sessions if "anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign..."
Watch the video:
https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000004965337/jeff-sessions-testimony-on-russia-contacts.html
You were trying to sell this readership on the notion that a question was limited to a subject matter, "about the campaign."
Now, I'd be among the first to support Sessions on the idea that as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he could have had innocent conversations with Russian diplomats.
But your characterization is wrong.
readering: "Guess there's a there there."
So, go ahead, lay it out for us.
Drago said...
So now that we know a couple Army Colonels were in the room with Sessions when he met with the Russian Ambassador, looks like the left and Chuck and Brando are going to have to smear and destroy those guys as well.
But hey, if that's what we have to do to make the dems feel better about their loss, it's totally worth it.
You are such a moronic binary tool. We are either for Trump or against him, is that right? I might hate Trump a little less, if his supporters weren't such assholes.
Isn't the real story here the Fake News that CNN put out that Franken ambushed Sessions with?
Aside: NeverTrumper's reveal themselves at the drop of a hat. You'd think they more more disciplined, sly.
Chuck said...I am all over this blog's comments, saying that I think that Jeff Sessions' AG nomination was one of the best things Trump has done. ... I have not said I think Sessions did anything wrong. I have NOTHING against Jeff Sessions, personally. 11:24 AM
Chuck said...I wish that I really knew that Jeff Sessions is "clean." I hope he is, but I really don't know. I always liked his placement as AG and I still do. I'd be bitterly disappointed if he were forced out. 1:35 PM
From "I haven't said he's done anything wrong" to "I hope he's clean but I really don't know" in an afternoon. That's the kind of rock-ribbed support you expect to see for someone you think so highly of, I guess. It starts with "I don't think you did anything wrong" and goes to "golly I hope you're clean, but I don't know that you are" and from there...well, bye bye Jeff.
I am sure Jeff Sessions will treasure your bitter disappointment, though, Chuck. It'll be a real comfort to him, I bet. Not just disappointed, no--bitterly disappointed. I bet you'll make a sad face and everything.
Sure, you're happy to align yourself with the people who are calling for investigations--people who are doing so just as a partisan tool to help bring down a guy they hate (and you happen to hate the same guy). YOU, though, you want the investigations for GOOD reasons, PURE reasons, so the fact that you happen to be on their side (the side of Pelosi, Warren, Schumer, MSNBC...etc) is just a coincidence in this case. Hey, a stopped clock's right a couple of times a day, so if those vicious, underhanded, cheating, power-abusing Leftists happen to agree with you on this one issue, well, that's just one of those things.
I get that it's too bad things are tribal in this way, I really do. I don't identify closely with the Trump tribe, myself. It's fucking idiotic to pretend that there's not a tribal aspect to our current political state, though--that's what Jonah Goldberg and a few others are doing, and it ignores the fact that the opposition is quite happy acting as a tribe and engaging in extended tribal warfare. It's a bit silly to say "you're acting like you're on Rachel Maddow's team!" It's not necessarily wrong, though, and it's fatal to ignore the fact that the Left IS acting as a team, IS happy to use any and all means of attack (including subverting the power of the State and/or law for their partisan purposes) and that saying "well, I won't help out that other tribe since I'm above such tribal considerations" IS a recipe for Leftist victory.
Browndog said...
Isn't the real story here the Fake News that CNN put out that Franken ambushed Sessions with?
Aside: NeverTrumper's reveal themselves at the drop of a hat. You'd think they more more disciplined, sly.
The leading NeverTrumpers signed their names to published individually bylined editorials, in a cover-story "Against Trump" issue of the National Review.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430126/
Who needs to be "sly"?
Just before the 2012 election Obama whispered to the outgoing Russian President to tell Putin that he would have more flexibility after the election. Obama also berated Romney during the debates for saying the Russians were our biggest threat. In hindsight, it seems clear that Obama was working with the Russians to hack the 2012 election, and therefore Obama's second term was illegitimate. Can we retroactively impeach him? Perhaps we should have Congress investigate this.
I kid of course. We have real problems that need to be solved. But no; let's instead have congress spend their time and our tax dollars playing "Spy vs Spy". Because a man like President Trump, who says his job is to represent the American people, and who is calling on both parties to unite to solve problems for the good of all Americans, is clearly a threat to our democracy... or something.
"Guess there's a there there. Not helpful when boss opines you're 'probably' telling the truth."
No, just a leftist meme that you signed onto long ago.
If Democrats can't win elections, they always have lawyer ready to help.
We have Obama because Jack Ryan's wife Jerry make some inflammatory accusations during a divorce and child custody trail thgat she later wished to have sealed. Probably because she lied. Any of you been through a divorce ?
Ted Stevens was taken down by Clinton DoJ lawyers kept on by Bush in one of his bone headed moves that almost brought down his presidency. They were later fired and one, I think, was disbarred, but they got Stevens.
Democrat lawyers are shameless but GOP lawyers are not much better.
The new Democrat AG for North Caroline a has committed a big no no one the appeal of the bathroom law.
This is only part of the story. The new AG and Governor are Democrats and the new D Governor was the previous AG who fought the law.
Jerry Brown was AG in California and refused to appeal the gay judge's ruling that Prop 8 was unconstitutional.
The NC guy may not get away scot free. He has been accused of unethical conduct before the USSC.
North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein (D) has been accused of committing serious ethical misconduct in a brief filed before the United States Supreme Court. Lawyers for the North Carolina Legislature have asked the Supreme Court to recognize their defense of election integrity laws such as voter ID laws and ignore Stein's attempt to derail an appeal to preserve the laws. The pleadings to the Supreme Court accuse Attorney General Stein of severe ethical misconduct, misconduct for which many lawyers have been disbarred.
Before Stein won the 2016 election and became North Carolina's attorney general, he was also a fact witness at trial for those attacking North Carolina’s election integrity statutes in federal court.
Lawyers are prohibited by ethical rules from acting as both a fact witness and an attorney of record in any case. The proper course for Stein was to recuse himself, not file a motion to dismiss a Supreme Court appeal to preserve voter ID
Democrats have no ethics anymore and Democrat lawyers are ethical swamps by definition.
You were trying to sell this readership on the notion that a question was limited to a subject matter, "about the campaign."
I think the issue was whether Sessions was "affiliated with" the campaign. Was he ?
Night Owl said...
Just before the 2012 election Obama whispered to the outgoing Russian President to tell Putin that he would have more flexibility after the election. Obama also berated Romney during the debates for saying the Russians were our biggest threat. In hindsight, it seems clear that Obama was working with the Russians to hack the 2012 election, and therefore Obama's second term was illegitimate. Can we retroactively impeach him? Perhaps we should have Congress investigate this.
I like your recalling this story. Of course the reason that most of us remember it, is because conservative media did a good job of making it a news story.
But of course the New York Times published it, at the time:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/us/politics/obama-caught-on-microphone-telling-medvedev-of-flexibility.html
And CNN covered it as well:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/26/open-mic-catches-obama-asking-russian-president-for-space-on-missile-defense/
Chuck said...
If there really is nothing there, an investigation ought to be simple, clean, clear, fast, and readily understood and accepted by all sides.
Let's git'er done. An independent investigation.
Let me explain something, Chuck, never, and I mean never talk to the police. Never ask for a polygraph test, never. Haven't you told us you are a lawyer? If so, what are your instructions to clients? Yeah, go ahead and talk, you have nothing to hide? Give them your computer, you have nothing to hide? Sure, let them search your house, you have nothing to hide? Go ahead, rip the car apart, my client has nothing to hide.
The complete absurdity of this entire subject is beyond belief. First of all , the Russians would have to somehow know that Trump was going to win the election months ahead of time while completely ignoring all of the polling.
And Russia's biggest asset is oil. Did they really want the guy that wants to frack and build the pipelines to be running America's energy policy?
The leading NeverTrumpers signed their names to published individually bylined editorials, in a cover-story "Against Trump" issue of the National Review.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430126/
Who needs to be "sly"?
I was speaking to the ones in Congress. The one's that proclaim publicly to support the Trump administration.
Obviously I was not referring to the obvious ones. Sorry I wasn't more obvious, obviously.
AllenS said...
Chuck said...
If there really is nothing there, an investigation ought to be simple, clean, clear, fast, and readily understood and accepted by all sides.
Let's git'er done. An independent investigation.
Let me explain something, Chuck, never, and I mean never talk to the police. Never ask for a polygraph test, never. Haven't you told us you are a lawyer? If so, what are your instructions to clients? Yeah, go ahead and talk, you have nothing to hide? Give them your computer, you have nothing to hide? Sure, let them search your house, you have nothing to hide? Go ahead, rip the car apart, my client has nothing to hide.
I never thought of myself in terms of being counsel to the AG. I was thinking of what I'd do, if I were a Senator, a House committee chairman, or if I were a President not named Trump.
If I were advising General Sessions, I wouldn't be posting it in opinion writings online.
Post a Comment