Attorney General Sessions Lied Under Oath

[Dancing Fire]

Talks of impeachment before 30 days in and no evidence of anything to even begin those proceedings. The left is rabid to get something on him to get rid of him.

For reasons unknown the Dems. kept forgetting that they aren't in control of Congress, so all these talks about impeaching Trump is just a pipe dream...

 

[the_mother_thing]

Talks of impeachment before 30 days in and no evidence of anything to even begin those proceedings. The left is rabid to get something on him to get rid of him.

For reasons unknown the Dems. kept forgetting that they aren't in control of Congress, so all these talks about impeaching Trump is just a pipe dream...

How does one advocate impeaching the president if he is "not their president"?

 

[Calliecake]

It's interesting how many of you don't have a problem with Sessions lying under oath.

 

[the_mother_thing]

It's interesting how many of you don't have a problem with Sessions lying under oath.

I don't believe he intentionally 'lied under oath'; he explained why he answered the way he did already, and he recused himself. And he is submitting an amendment to the record from his hearing to include mention of the meeting. I just don't perceive his behavior to appear deceptive.

I'd say that's sufficient, and a heck of a lot more than most have done in recent years. It's not like he sat there for hours pleading the fifth, unable to recall everything, etc.

 

[redwood66]

It's interesting how many of you don't have a problem with Sessions lying under oath.

I don't believe he intentionally 'lied under oath'; he explained why he answered the way he did already, and he recused himself. And he is submitting an amendment to the record from his hearing to include mention of the meeting. I just don't perceive his behavior to appear deceptive.

I'd say that's sufficient, and a heck of a lot more than most have done in recent years. It's not like he sat there for hours pleading the fifth, unable to recall everything, etc.

Or wiping things with a "cloth" or something.

 

[AGBF]

What the Trump team has done, meeting with the Russian ambassador during the time that President Obama was attempting to put sanctions against Russia into place, and then lying about it, is unprecedented. (Now the confirmed number of his staff who met with the Russian ambassador is up to five, by the way. Not only Jeff Sessions, but his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, met with the Russian ambassador.)

This is an unfriendly foreign power engaged in imperialism and war. It is menacing many countries on its borders and in its vicinity. Not only has it already annexed Crimea and invaded Ukraine, but it is menacing the Baltic States and Poland. Sweden just reinstated the draft out of fear of Russian aggression. The Russians have engaged in a campaign of internal and external lawlessness and assassination to benefit the oligarchs at the top raking in the money.

This story really illustrates what Vladimir Putin is about. Supporting Russia against the United States should not be seen as a minor crime, analogous to anything seen by an American politician before. This is from "The Financial Times".

The Magnitsky Murder...https://www.ft.com/content/7efe34d6-d5f0-11e1-a5f3-00144feabdc0

 

[AnnaH]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445186/left-hypocrisy-russia-partner-under-obama

Consider President Obama's relationship with the Russians before you say Trump is too friendly.

Trump's campaign will be investigated, probably by Obama appointees. I don't think there's collusion, but it will come out if there is,

 

[partgypsy]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445186/left-hypocrisy-russia-partner-under-obama

Consider President Obama's relationship with the Russians before you say Trump is too friendly.

Trump's campaign will be investigated, probably by Obama appointees. I don't think there's collusion, but it will come out if there is,

the problem is, that Obama and his puppets didn't communicate with Russia before the election, to affect election results, for some possible quid pro quo. Which is actually treason.

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/03/02/potential-investigations-russia-donald-trump/

 

[AnnaH]

PGypsy, we don't know that Trump committed treason. IF he did, it will come out. Obama constantly made deals with Russia that benefited them and did nothing for us. No thoughts about that?

 

[jaaron]

For what it's worth, I do think there was collusion, but I don't think Cheeto knew about it. I think his close circle knows that he's way too much of a loose cannon to let him in on anything that important. I do think he's up to his nasty little eyeballs in dodgy financial dealings with the Russians, and didn't hesitate to surround himself with puppets, and utterly blackmail-able, but I doubt he's in on any big treasonous secrets.

As far as impeachment goes, I doubt he'll be impeached. He's convenient right now because Ryan and Pence have lots of ideas but no real idea of how to move them toward policy. They're screwed any way they turn on Obamacare, they're supposed to find the money for this ridiculous wall. The country as a whole is not particularly supportive of Ryan's old school, screw the poor, conservatism. Some care about Pence's social agenda, but that's not really what brought out the vote. They're directionless and 45 provides a nice distraction while they try to find their feet. If a few appointees fall by the wayside in the meantime, whatever.

My bet it that once they get it together (if they get it together), if Trump is still at the centre of the sideshow, he'll (as David Frum predicts) suddenly develop health problems and need to resign.

 

[jaaron]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445186/left-hypocrisy-russia-partner-under-obama

Consider President Obama's relationship with the Russians before you say Trump is too friendly.

Trump's campaign will be investigated, probably by Obama appointees. I don't think there's collusion, but it will come out if there is,

This is the thing I find baffling. Do Trump supporters not understand the difference between a president, conducting foreign policy and negotiations--albeit in a way people might agree or disagree with--and a candidate, or a newly elected but not yet inaugurated president and his staff, colluding with a foreign country that is influencing or has influenced a 'free and democratic' election?

If, as a president Trump is soft on Russia, ok, that's his prerogative. As a candidate or not yet inaugurated president? That's seriously problematic.

 

[the_mother_thing]

the problem is, that Obama and his puppets didn't communicate with Russia before the election, to affect election results, for some possible quid pro quo. Which is actually treason.

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/03/02/potential-investigations-russia-donald-trump/

How soon we forget about Obama having 'more flexibility after his re-election' for Russia at a national security summit in 2012.

If he didn't GET re-elected, he'd have NO flexibility or authority to do squat.

https://youtu.be/XsFR8DbSRQE

 

[lovedogs]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445186/left-hypocrisy-russia-partner-under-obama

Consider President Obama's relationship with the Russians before you say Trump is too friendly.

Trump's campaign will be investigated, probably by Obama appointees. I don't think there's collusion, but it will come out if there is,

This is the thing I find baffling. Do Trump supporters not understand the difference between a president, conducting foreign policy and negotiations--albeit in a way people might agree or disagree with--and a candidate, or a newly elected but not yet inaugurated president and his staff, colluding with a foreign country that is influencing or has influenced a 'free and democratic' election?

If, as a president Trump is soft on Russia, ok, that's his prerogative. As a candidate or not yet inaugurated president? That's seriously problematic.

This is also the piece I find extremely confusing. The difference is SO CLEAR, but somehow people continuously overlook it.

 

[jaaron]

the problem is, that Obama and his puppets didn't communicate with Russia before the election, to affect election results, for some possible quid pro quo. Which is actually treason.

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/03/02/potential-investigations-russia-donald-trump/

How soon we forget about Obama having 'more flexibility after his re-election' for Russia at a national security summit in 2012.

If he didn't GET re-elected, he'd have NO flexibility or authority to do squat.

https://youtu.be/XsFR8DbSRQE

He was still, at the time, president, with the full authority of the office. Are you suggesting that no first-term president running for re-election conduct any business in the last--how many?--years of their term? I think that would come as a big surprise to every two-term president out there.

 

[E B]

This is also the piece I find extremely confusing. The difference is SO CLEAR, but somehow people continuously overlook it.

It's not overlooked, it's willful (here, at least). Straw-grasping. I'm ignoring it from now on.

 

[E B]

OK, just one more!

the problem is, that Obama and his puppets didn't communicate with Russia before the election, to affect election results, for some possible quid pro quo. Which is actually treason.

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/03/02/potential-investigations-russia-donald-trump/

How soon we forget about Obama having 'more flexibility after his re-election' for Russia at a national security summit in 2012.

If he didn't GET re-elected, he'd have NO flexibility or authority to do squat.

https://youtu.be/XsFR8DbSRQE

If you have evidence that Obama engaged in treasonous/illegal behavior while doing so, get it to the FBI, stat. If Obama cooperates fully, so does Trump- independent investigations for both!

 

[redwood66]

This is also the piece I find extremely confusing. The difference is SO CLEAR, but somehow people continuously overlook it.

It's not overlooked, it's willful (here, at least). Straw-grasping. I'm ignoring it from now on.

Aw that is too bad EB. Everyone should be glad we live in a land where we can practice free thought.

 

[E B]

This is also the piece I find extremely confusing. The difference is SO CLEAR, but somehow people continuously overlook it.

It's not overlooked, it's willful (here, at least). Straw-grasping. I'm ignoring it from now on.

Aw that is too bad EB. Everyone should be glad we live in a land where we can practice free thought.

Ain't that the truth! For now. I hear it's not the case in Russia.

 

[redwood66]

This is also the piece I find extremely confusing. The difference is SO CLEAR, but somehow people continuously overlook it.

It's not overlooked, it's willful (here, at least). Straw-grasping. I'm ignoring it from now on.

Aw that is too bad EB. Everyone should be glad we live in a land where we can practice free thought.

Ain't that the truth! For now. I hear it's not the case in Russia.

Its not in many other places either. Relish in what we have.

 

[ruby59]

This is also the piece I find extremely confusing. The difference is SO CLEAR, but somehow people continuously overlook it.

It's not overlooked, it's willful (here, at least). Straw-grasping. I'm ignoring it from now on.

Aw that is too bad EB. Everyone should be glad we live in a land where we can practice free thought.

Ain't that the truth! For now. I hear it's not the case in Russia.

Are you being sarcastic because you hate Trump so much, or do you really believe in the least that Trump will turn the US into some type of Russia?

Do you really think we do not have adequate checks and balances here to prevent that even IF that was Trump's plan, which is ludicrous?

 

[E B]

Are you being sarcastic because you hate Trump so much, or do you really believe in the least that Trump will turn the US into some type of Russia?

Do you really think we do not have adequate checks and balances here to prevent that even IF that was Trump's plan, which is ludicrous?

It was mostly sarcastic, but heck, there's already been an effort by the president to turn people against "the media," among other authoritarian tactics. It doesn't start with a flood, but with a trickle. It starts to feel like a new, acceptable normal. Frog in the boiling pot.

I have lost a lot of faith in our checks and balances, though. In congress almost completely. Partisanship is a helluva drug, and there's been far too much stonewalling for something that, if they are to be believed, is completely benign and should be over with ASAP. Right? And the judiciary is another check Trump is trying to undermine. Drip, drip, drip.

 

[redwood66]

Are you being sarcastic because you hate Trump so much, or do you really believe in the least that Trump will turn the US into some type of Russia?

Do you really think we do not have adequate checks and balances here to prevent that even IF that was Trump's plan, which is ludicrous?

It was mostly sarcastic, but heck, there's already been an effort by the president to turn people against "the media," among other authoritarian tactics. It doesn't start with a flood, but with a trickle. It starts to feel like a new, acceptable normal. Frog in the boiling pot.

I have lost a lot of faith in our checks and balances, though. In congress almost completely. Partisanship is a helluva drug, and there's been far too much stonewalling for something that, if they are to be believed, is completely benign and should be over with ASAP. Right? And the judiciary is another check Trump is trying to undermine. Drip, drip, drip.

It is not Trump that has turned me against the media. They did that to themselves long ago in my eyes. The sycophantic last 8 years was disgusting and the about face in the last 30 days is even more so.

 

[lovedogs]

It was mostly sarcastic, but heck, there's already been an effort by the president to turn people against "the media," among other authoritarian tactics. It doesn't start with a flood, but with a trickle. It starts to feel like a new, acceptable normal. Frog in the boiling pot.

I have lost a lot of faith in our checks and balances, though. In congress almost completely. Partisanship is a helluva drug, and there's been far too much stonewalling for something that, if they are to be believed, is completely benign and should be over with ASAP. Right? And the judiciary is another check Trump is trying to undermine. Drip, drip, drip.

Oh look, another excellent example of partisanship. As VP candidate: LOCK HER UP! EMAILSSSS. As actual VP: no no, MY emails being compromised is TOTALLY DIFFERENT guys. Come on, it's definitely not the same thing.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/03/politics/mike-pence-personal-email-address/index.html

 

[E B]

It is not Trump that has turned me against the media. They did that to themselves long ago in my eyes. The sycophantic last 8 years was disgusting and the about face in the last 30 days is even more so.

Fair enough. Like I said, partisanship is a helluva drug, and people tend to tune out what they don't agree with, accurate or not. A free press is, however, essential to a functioning democracy, and any president who tries to turn his country against outlets who put out critical pieces (in this case, most) is being irresponsible at best. Just ask any of the surviving presidents before him.

 

[redwood66]

It is not Trump that has turned me against the media. They did that to themselves long ago in my eyes. The sycophantic last 8 years was disgusting and the about face in the last 30 days is even more so.

Fair enough. Like I said, partisanship is a helluva drug, and people tend to tune out what they don't agree with, accurate or not. A free press is, however, essential to a functioning democracy, and any president who tries to turn his country against outlets who put out critical pieces (in this case, most) is being irresponsible at best. Just ask any of the surviving presidents before him.

Of course it is and he should just leave it be. They are going to do what they want and he has no control over it. I would rather he get to work and forget them.

A free and fair press not loaded with Op Ed that people take for news is not that.

 

[ruby59]

Are you being sarcastic because you hate Trump so much, or do you really believe in the least that Trump will turn the US into some type of Russia?

Do you really think we do not have adequate checks and balances here to prevent that even IF that was Trump's plan, which is ludicrous?

It was mostly sarcastic, but heck, there's already been an effort by the president to turn people against "the media," among other authoritarian tactics. It doesn't start with a flood, but with a trickle. It starts to feel like a new, acceptable normal. Frog in the boiling pot.

I have lost a lot of faith in our checks and balances, though. In congress almost completely. Partisanship is a helluva drug, and there's been far too much stonewalling for something that, if they are to be believed, is completely benign and should be over with ASAP. Right? And the judiciary is another check Trump is trying to undermine. Drip, drip, drip.

Actually, the people who made me more discerning about the media is you guys.

As far as turning people against the media, imo, it is the media themselves with their heads exploding and rush to judgment. It does not take long for the average person to question some of the news anchors there who obviously have their own agenda.

Now Sessions recused himself. Even Greta on MSNBC who is a lawyer said that was sufficient and there is no need for him to resign. And they are looking into it, but these things take time.

How is Trump undermining the judiciary? Almost everyone is pleased with his pick.

But if anyone there is a problem it is Ginsburg. High time she retire, like yesterday.

 

[E B]

Oh look, another excellent example of partisanship. As VP candidate: LOCK HER UP! EMAILSSSS. As actual VP: no no, MY emails being compromised is TOTALLY DIFFERENT guys. Come on, it's definitely not the same thing.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/03/politics/mike-pence-personal-email-address/index.html

Oh, but of course. Not an ounce of outrage over Trump using an unsecured mobile device as President as well as much of his admin using a private server in the first weeks.

There isn't much, even just a month and change in that Trump criticized Hillary/Obama for that he hasn't himself done. The costs for travel and the golfing is among the most blatant.

 

[E B]

How is Trump undermining the judiciary? Almost everyone is pleased with his pick.

Judge Curiel? Or, more recently, "So-called judges." I wasn't referring at all to his SC pick. You see, he attacks anyone and anything that is critical of him, which can become incredibly dangerous. Drip, drip, drip.

As far as turning people against the media, imo, it is the media themselves with their heads exploding and rush to judgment. It does not take long for the average person to question some of the news anchors there who obviously have their own agenda.

That's why it's bad to get, or only trust, news from one source, or from a few that make up an echo chamber. That's the whole point of a free press- the ability to read from a multitude of sources with different viewpoints, though facts are facts, whether we agree with them or not. Like science, to quote Mr. DeGrasse Tyson.

Ginsburg isn't any more of a 'politicized' justice than Scalia was, and yet conservatives hold him up as some sort of an apolitical constitutional virtuoso. For the cheap seats: partisanship is a HELLUVA drug.

 

[the_mother_thing]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445186/left-hypocrisy-russia-partner-under-obama

Consider President Obama's relationship with the Russians before you say Trump is too friendly.

Trump's campaign will be investigated, probably by Obama appointees. I don't think there's collusion, but it will come out if there is,

This is the thing I find baffling. Do Trump supporters not understand the difference between a president, conducting foreign policy and negotiations--albeit in a way people might agree or disagree with--and a candidate, or a newly elected but not yet inaugurated president and his staff, colluding with a foreign country that is influencing or has influenced a 'free and democratic' election?

If, as a president Trump is soft on Russia, ok, that's his prerogative. As a candidate or not yet inaugurated president? That's seriously problematic.

This is also the piece I find extremely confusing. The difference is SO CLEAR, but somehow people continuously overlook it.

It's repeatedly been noted that candidates' campaigns are permitted to meet with foreign nationals, but somehow people continuously overlook THAT.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Emails, Russians, appointees, executive orders ... whole lotta this going on it seems.