Anyone want to comment on Sessions

[Gardening Grandma]

Mar 2, 2017 13:29:58 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

In the non-political realm isn't this the same thing that did Paula Deen in?   She was asked if she had EVER said the "n" word under oath and then someone dug under a rock and found out that decades ago she did use it and therefore lied?

One lied about a racist comment.  The other lied about possible treason.  Apples: oranges

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Mar 2, 2017 13:33:44 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Mar 2, 2017 13:29:58 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

In the non-political realm isn't this the same thing that did Paula Deen in?   She was asked if she had EVER said the "n" word under oath and then someone dug under a rock and found out that decades ago she did use it and therefore lied?

One lied about a racist comment.  The other lied about possible treason.  Apples: oranges

That wasn't my point.   If Paula Deen could be destroyed by not disclosing that decades ago she used the "n" word after being asked did she EVER use it while under oath what made the AG think that not disclosing that he has spoken to the Russians would be overlooked?

If lying about the n word and BJs under oath can destroy people then he was either hiding something or is a major dumbass.   Either way not someone I would want as the nation's AG.

[Rukh O'Rorke]

Has Paula Deen been destroyed?

if so, it was the butter!

[Gardening Grandma]

Mar 2, 2017 13:35:39 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

Mar 2, 2017 13:33:44 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

One lied about a racist comment.  The other lied about possible treason.  Apples: oranges

That wasn't my point.   If Paula Deen could be destroyed by not disclosing that decades ago she used the "n" word after being asked did she EVER use it while under oath what made the AG think that not disclosing that he has spoken to the Russians would be overlooked?

If lying about the n word and BJs under oath can destroy people then he was either hiding something or is a major dumbass.   Either way not someone I would want as the nation's AG.

I did miss your point (apologies)....  Perhaps he feels he is more powerful and can ride this out?  Does he seriously think anyone thinks he should be in charge of investigating himself?

[djAdvocate]

comment: i think he is in deep shit.  and if not, he should be.

[ken a.k.a OMK]

I agree but see the trend. An unfit POTUS, unfit secretaries and appointees, unfit Bannon running things, GOP congress without backbone to question anything Trump. 

[Phoenix84]

Mar 2, 2017 11:26:43 GMT -5 ken a.k.a OMK said:

 I recall 8 hearings on Benghazi. But this is just a Dem witch hunt. 

Ah, so that's what this is about, a tit for tat kind of thing, petty revenge, not really about Russia.  Thanks for letting me know.

So much for the "when they go low we go high" stance of the democrats.

[Rukh O'Rorke]

Mar 2, 2017 13:45:21 GMT -5 Rukh O'Rorke said:

Has Paula Deen been destroyed?

if so, it was the butter!

Mrs. buttersworth did it in the kitchen with an offset spatula...

[Phoenix84]

Mar 2, 2017 13:33:44 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Mar 2, 2017 13:29:58 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

In the non-political realm isn't this the same thing that did Paula Deen in?   She was asked if she had EVER said the "n" word under oath and then someone dug under a rock and found out that decades ago she did use it and therefore lied?

One lied about a racist comment.  The other lied about possible treason.  Apples: oranges

Treason is a pretty strong word. Treason is defined as aiding or abetting the enemy, or trying to overthrow the sovereign government of the United States. Can you please explain how Mr. Sessions accomplished this?

[ken a.k.a OMK]

Mar 2, 2017 14:10:19 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Mar 2, 2017 11:26:43 GMT -5 ken a.k.a OMK said:

 I recall 8 hearings on Benghazi. But this is just a Dem witch hunt. 

Ah, so that's what this is about, a tit for tat kind of thing, petty revenge, not really about Russia.  Thanks for letting me know.

So much for the "when they go low we go high" stance of the democrats.

Nice spin. 8 congressional hearings = questioning the new AG lying to congress. Petty revenge hell!!

[Rukh O'Rorke]

Mar 2, 2017 14:10:19 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Mar 2, 2017 11:26:43 GMT -5 ken a.k.a OMK said:

 I recall 8 hearings on Benghazi. But this is just a Dem witch hunt. 

Ah, so that's what this is about, a tit for tat kind of thing, petty revenge, not really about Russia.  Thanks for letting me know.

So much for the "when they go low we go high" stance of the democrats.

Lol, common....save that high horse for the third investigation at least....

[Gardening Grandma]

Mar 2, 2017 14:16:08 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Mar 2, 2017 13:33:44 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

One lied about a racist comment.  The other lied about possible treason.  Apples: oranges

Treason is a pretty strong word. Treason is defined as aiding or abetting the enemy, or trying to overthrow the sovereign government of the United States. Can you please explain how Mr. Sessions accomplished this?

Pretty sure I said "possible".   Yep. I did.....  Colluding with a hostile foreign government - if that's what the conversation was about - to affect a presidential election - fits my definition of treason.

[Phoenix84]

Mar 2, 2017 14:54:21 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Mar 2, 2017 14:16:08 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Treason is a pretty strong word. Treason is defined as aiding or abetting the enemy, or trying to overthrow the sovereign government of the United States. Can you please explain how Mr. Sessions accomplished this?

Pretty sure I said "possible".   Yep. I did.....  Colluding with a hostile foreign government - if that's what the conversation was about - to affect a presidential election - fits my definition of treason.

It's clear you guys have your version of alternative facts. Obviously the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government to hack the DNC and influence the election. 

At least have the guts to come out and say it.

[ken a.k.a OMK]

It's clear you guys have your version of alternative facts. Obviously the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government to hack the DNC and influence the election.



At least have the guts to come out and say it.

I don't believe they colluded, but the possible influence of the Russian hacking needs to be investigated. 

[Phoenix84]

Look, the bottom line is you don't know why Sessions talked with the Russian ambassador, or what was said, or anything of the context. That's ok, because no one knows at this point.

So you fill in the gaps in your knowledge with speculation that confirms your bias against Trump.

I'd like to acquaint you with a term called confirmation bias.

en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/confirmation_bias

In summary, it's a tendency (i.e. human nature) to search for and interpret information in such a way as to confirm one's pre existing beliefs, and at the same time give less weight to information that contradicts one's beliefs. 

We all do it, it's something that you have to be on alert for when processing information.

[billisonboard]

Mar 2, 2017 15:33:43 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

... alternative facts. ...

I think we need to have an investigation to determine what the actual facts are before we can know what to identify as alternatives to them.

[Phoenix84]

Mar 2, 2017 15:44:15 GMT -5 ken a.k.a OMK said:

It's clear you guys have your version of alternative facts. Obviously the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government to hack the DNC and influence the election.



At least have the guts to come out and say it.

I don't believe they colluded, but the possible influence of the Russian hacking needs to be investigated. 

Obviously GG does or she wouldn't have used the word treason, or at least "possible treason."

[grumpyhermit]

Mar 2, 2017 15:50:18 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Look, the bottom line is you don't know why Sessions talked with the Russian ambassador, or what was said, or anything of the context. That's ok, because no one knows at this point.

So you fill in the gaps in your knowledge with speculation that confirms your bias against Trump.

I'd like to acquaint you with a term called confirmation bias.

en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/confirmation_bias

In summary, it's a tendency (i.e. human nature) to search for and interpret information in such a way as to confirm one's pre existing beliefs, and at the same time give less weight to information that contradicts one's beliefs. 

We all do it, it's something that you have to be on alert for when processing information.

Not everyone is spinning elaborate conspiracy theories against Trump. I am willing to withhold judgement on the Russia stuff until more facts are known (if only the Republicans weren't blocking all attempts to try to get to bottom of it).

The reason we don't know that is because he LIED to Congress during his confirmation hearing. Do you honestly not see the problem with that?

[Rob Base 2.0]

I can't believe this scheme goes all the way back to 1991!  Talk about the "long game".  Went to Russia in 1991 as part of a "church group"....sure

Impeach them and throw them all in jail

When are they finally going to put Trump in jail for peeing on Russian prostitutes in Moscow? Or did they pee on him? I forget if he was the pee-er or pee-ee.....

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 2, 2017 11:39:35 GMT -5 swamp said:

Mar 2, 2017 11:21:55 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

It's just the latest in the democrat witch hunt against the Trump administration.

The discussions were reportedly in regards to his position as a member of the senate armed services committee, not in regards to Trump campaign.

I know it doesn't matter, the democrats have already determined he's guilty of some heinous crime even though we don't know the facts, because, you know, Trump is evil and we're mad we lost the election.

Even though I highly doubt there was any wrongdoing, it'd probably be best for him to recuse himself of any investigation or prosecution in regards to Russia.  If nothing else, just for the optics of it.

Then why lie?

From what I read, he met with more than 20 foreign ambassadors during the previous months. It's quite possible he forgot or overlooked it.

Also, if you read the transcript of his hearing and go back to the beginning of the line of questioning, the context is clearly established to be meetings for campaign activities. His testimony is true in that context.

I see no reason why he'd purposely withhold testimony about two routine meetings with the ambassador if he indeed remembered them and felt they were relevant to the question. Hence the only question in my mind is: was it a big enough oversight to disqualify him?

Gut feeling: no. Given the issue of context, it's not a big enough error to have him thrown out. But he should make a formal statement and apologize for not being clearer.

ETA: I recommend that everyone here read the transcript going back to the beginning (not just the excerpt) and come to your own conclusions about the context of the questions. ZH has a copy posted here.

[thyme4change]

If we impeach Trump, Pence will be our President. That may be even worse. He seems more reasonable, but wants to bring back 1945. I like having shoes and leaving the kitchen. I don't want to give that up.

[Virgil Showlion]

So you don't have to go there if you don't want to (ibid.):

To be sure, there is some verbal semantics in play: the WaPo's core allegation is that Sessions did not disclose his meeting with the Russian ambassador Kislyak - which took place in July and September, the second meeting reportedly occurred in Sessions' Senate office - to the Senate when he was asked about "possible contacts between members of President Trump’s campaign and representatives of Moscow." Sessions’s spokesperson at the Department of Justice, Sarah Isgur Flores, says his answer in January was truthful because he was asked about “the Trump campaign, not about meetings he took as a senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee." She added that "there was absolutely nothing misleading about his answer," during the confirmation process, noting that he had over 25 conversations with ambassadors as a member of the Armed Services Committee.

According to the Wednesday Post story, Sessions’ conversations with Kislyak took place in July and September. The second meeting reportedly occurred in Sessions' Senate office. Sessions did not disclose those discussions during his January confirmation hearing in response to a question.

The Post does not provide the full transcript of the question, from Sen. Al Franken (D-MN), and Sessions’s answer. Instead it summarizes the exchange in a way that makes it seem that Sessions was asked if there was any contact at all between the campaign and representatives of the Russian government. What Sessions was asked about was sustained, ongoing communications, a core accusation in the dubious Trump “dossier.”

The C-Span transcript of the meeting is as follows:

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.

[Virgil Showlion]

I'm sorry, anti-Trumpers. The more I read it the more I side with Mr. Sessions on this one. This wasn't a lie.

I know you want the guy turfed but this ain't going to do it.

deminmaine: This is an example of what I'm talking about with newspapers no longer being great. To get the whole truth, you have to go to sources outside the MSM. The WaPo is just interested in crucifying the guy, not fair reporting.

[Gardening Grandma]

Mar 2, 2017 15:33:43 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Mar 2, 2017 14:54:21 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Pretty sure I said "possible".   Yep. I did.....  Colluding with a hostile foreign government - if that's what the conversation was about - to affect a presidential election - fits my definition of treason.

It's clear you guys have your version of alternative facts. Obviously the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government to hack the DNC and influence the election. 

At least have the guts to come out and say it.

Apparently you missed the "if".  Let me make it easier for you...

Now, maybe they were discussing the weather....    Or 45's sex preferences...  

[Gardening Grandma]

Breaking - Sessions is recusing himself.  Watching the questions:... "I don't recall"..... "I don't recall"..... I don't recall"....

Seems to be having some (selective) memory issues... 

[Tennesseer]

Mar 2, 2017 16:26:49 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

If we impeach Trump, Pence will be our President. That may be even worse. He seems more reasonable, but wants to bring back 1945. I like having shoes and leaving the kitchen. I don't want to give that up.

Why not get rid of both? It was the Trump/Pence ticket after all. They are a package deal.

[dezailoooooo]

Mar 2, 2017 16:24:10 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Mar 2, 2017 11:39:35 GMT -5 swamp said:

Then why lie?

From what I read, he met with more than 20 foreign ambassadors during the previous months. It's quite possible he forgot or overlooked it.

Also, if you read the transcript of his hearing and go back to the beginning of the line of questioning, the context is clearly established to be meetings for campaign activities. His testimony is true in that context.

I see no reason why he'd purposely withhold testimony about two routine meetings with the ambassador if he indeed remembered them and felt they were relevant to the question. Hence the only question in my mind is: was it a big enough oversight to disqualify him?

Gut feeling: no. Given the issue of context, it's not a big enough error to have him thrown out. But he should make a formal statement and apologize for not being clearer.

ETA: I recommend that everyone here read the transcript going back to the beginning (not just the excerpt) and come to your own conclusions about the context of the questions. ZH has a copy posted here.

I am curiouse...these people , especially the ones wo have been around awhile don't keep office journels...who they see..possible short notes on what was discussed..if had lunch or entertained in office no notes..no expenses noted..no nothing...?

[Gardening Grandma]

Mar 2, 2017 16:26:49 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

If we impeach Trump, Pence will be our President. That may be even worse. He seems more reasonable, but wants to bring back 1945. I like having shoes and leaving the kitchen. I don't want to give that up.

One asshole at a time, grasshopper.  One asshole at a time.... 

[billisonboard]

IM(not so)HO, Sessions recusing himself is the appropriate step.  Let an investigation take place and go from there based on what is discovered through that process. 

[Tennesseer]

Opinion piece:

Jeff Sessions Needs to Go

In the wake of Wednesday’s revelation that Attorney General Jeff Sessions spoke with Russia’s ambassador to the United States while working with the Trump campaign, despite denying those contacts during his confirmation hearings, key Republican and Democratic lawmakers are calling for him to recuse himself from overseeing any Justice Department investigation into contacts between the campaign and the Russian government. Some are even saying he needs to resign.

It’s a bombshell of a story. And it’s one with a clear and disturbing precedent.

In 1972 Richard G. Kleindienst, the acting attorney general, appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee in a confirmation hearing on his nomination by President Richard Nixon to be attorney general. He was to replace Attorney General John N. Mitchell, who had resigned in disgrace and would later be sent to prison in the Watergate scandal.

Several Democratic senators were concerned about rumors of White House interference in a Justice Department antitrust suit against International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation, a campaign contributor to the Republican National Committee. They asked Kleindienst several times if he had ever spoken with anyone at the White House about the I.T.T. case. He said he had not.

That wasn’t true. Later, after Kleindienst was confirmed as attorney general, the special prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, and his team uncovered an Oval Office tape recording of a phone call in which Nixon told Kleindiesnt to drop the I.T.T. case. Kleindienst claimed that he thought the senators’ questions were limited to a particular period, not the entire time during which the case was pending.

Jaworski didn’t buy it. He filed criminal charges against Kleindienst, who was forced to resign as attorney general. Eventually Kleindienst pleaded guilty to failure to provide accurate information to Congress, a misdemeanor, for conduct that many observers believed amounted to perjury. He was also reprimanded by the Arizona State Bar.

Complete article here:  Jeff Sessions Needs to Go