Sessions the new Sacrificial Lamb

giphy.gif
 
More Dem whining and trying to make something, anything, out of this BS story that the Russians "hacked the election". Not impressed.
 
The Dems will lose this battle as their claim is complete nonsense.

Sessions was not part of the Trump campaign back in July and Sept when the two meetings took place. Nor did the question Franken asked remotely translate to if he ever had contact with Russian officials.

What a crock, it was his job to meet with numerous foreign officials as a member of the Armed Services Committee.

All they're gonna do here is get more MSM Trump/Russia headlines and phony outrage. The claim is too baseless to further the cause of an investigation into Trump and Russia.

This ridiculous hail mary will never stick and Trump will definitely fight tooth and nail for Sessions, unlike Flynn.

Sessions did Trump a HUGE solid by praising him when he endorsed Cruz. At that time few current politicians wanted anything to do with DT.

Sessions is well-respected in highly conservative circles and his praise helped DT gain much more legitimacy within the party.

Good luck thinking they can tank him twisting nonsense like this. Trump would never sacrifice Sessions unless he was dead to rights holding a smoking gun.

Not only is DT fiercely loyal to Sessions, but sacrificing him over Lib manipulated accusations would shatter the attack flood gates around his cabinet. Guarantee this is where DT makes his stand protecting his own, and Sessions will be just fine.

I guess Musburger ignored the most important part of the "toast" article he linked...

"Despite the growing clamor from Democrats, there's about a zero percent chance President Trump will fire Sessions or that the House will impeach him — the only ways he could leave."
 
Last edited:
Calling for him to resign is too much but for him to recuse himself is a must, just like Lynch should have recused herself.

Now, Sessions excuse on why he didn't mention his meetings with the Russian Ambassador are pretty flimsy. Like HRC's email saga and Flynn's lie to his bosses, any fallout from this is 100% self inflicted. If Sessions had simply said, "I met with Kislyak as part of my Senate role" during the hearings and offered recusal this would have blown over.

It's almost as if the Trump Admin is handing the bullets to their detractors.
 
Brad Austin said:
Sessions was not part of the Trump campaign back in July and Sept when the two meetings took place.
Click to expand...

You do realize that Sessions stated in his hearing that he was a surrogate for the Trump Campaign. Are you saying surrogates are not associated with the campaigns? That reasoning my be up there with "it depends on your definition of 'is'".
 
Calling for him to resign is too much but for him to recuse himself is a must, just like Lynch should have recused herself.
Click to expand...

^ I agree. The dems have ammunition, but when I see democratic congressmen say "He lied under oath. He should resign," it reminds me of their position on Bill Clinton resigning. The days of people resigning over this stuff are over. There cannot be two sets of rules for each party. If people want to blame the republicans or dems in the 90s, that is up to them, but Sessions has no business losing his job over this under the current political order.
 
The attackers will simply equate it to what Flynn did. They will emphasize that the meeting wasn't important but claim Sessions lied to cover up that he met just like Flynn was accused of misleading Pence. Trump will not be allowed to control the intelligence agencies or the DOJ. Eventually he will be impeached or forced to resign unless he finds a way to expose the opposition as criminals.
 
Last edited:
Is this another class five political hurricane that is about to hit Washington? Too many to keep track of.
 
This is politically and legally flimsy. First, when I read Pelosi's statement that Sessions should resign because he "lied under oath," I immediately chuckled. Since 1998, lying under oath is OK for a federal official, and of course, Nancy Pelosi voted to make that the standard. It's laughable and partisan for her now to be making the case for his resignation.

Nevertheless, if my understanding of this is correct, the meetings with the Russian ambassador were not as a representative of the Trump campaign but as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and in his campaign office, not in the campaign office. It's pretty clear from the question that Senator Franken was talking about communications between the campaign and Russian officials, and in that context and considering the fact that Sessions mentioned being a surrogate (which he wouldn't have been as a senator), it's a pretty reasonable interpretation of his comment that Sessions was referring to his role as a surrogate. It's not the most precise language, but it's a bit of a stretch to call it perjury.

Having said that, I've already indicated that I support an independent investigation of Russian involvement in the election and don't have a problem with that investigation looking into whether or not there was coordination with the Trump campaign. On this particular matter, would there be anything wrong with appointing a special prosecutor? I suppose not, but unless there are other facts, the special prosecutor is unlikely to do much with it. Let's put it this way. If the prosecutor gets partisan and tries to force it, if I were Sessions, I'd very gladly and comfortably take it to court.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Nevertheless, if my understanding of this is correct, the meetings with the Russian ambassador were not as a representative of the Trump campaign but as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and in his campaign office, not in the campaign office. It's pretty clear from the question that Senator Franken was talking about communications between the campaign and Russian officials, and in that context and considering the fact that Sessions mentioned being a surrogate (which he wouldn't have been as a senator),..
Click to expand...

No doubt this whole thing is political, but as Seattle said self inflicted. We are just at the beginning of yet another episode, and I wouldn't be surprised if these are the first bread crumbs given the story about what the Obama Administration was doing in the closing days and considering how the whole Flynn episode evolved.

All that said, maybe this whole Russia thing is just smoke (let's hope so for the good of the country), can we all agree that Russia achieved its primary goal of causing havoc for the new administration.
 
Last edited:
djimaplon said:
No doubt this whole thing is political, but as Seattle said self inflicted. We are just at the beginning of yet another episode, and I wouldn't be surprised if these are the first bread crumbs given the story about what the Obama Administration was doing in the closing days and considering how the whole Flynn episode evolved.

All that said, maybe this whole Russia thing is just smoke (let's hope so for the good of the country), can we all agree that Russia achieved its primary goal of causing havoc for the new administration.
Click to expand...

In the sense that he could have given a more precise answer, yes, it is a self-inflicted wound. However, the entire Russia issue is the biggest self-inflicted wound because of how Trump handled Russia during the campaign. If you spend several months criticizing most of the world but then you kiss one guy's *** every chance you get, it's only natural that people are going to wonder why and be suspicious. If Trump hadn't done that, there's a good chance that Sessions would never have even been asked the question.
 
Mr. Deez said:
In the sense that he could have given a more precise answer, yes, it is a self-inflicted wound. However, the entire Russia issue is the biggest self-inflicted wound because of how Trump handled Russia during the campaign. If you spend several months criticizing most of the world but then you kiss one guy's *** every chance you get, it's only natural that people are going to wonder why and be suspicious. If Trump hadn't done that, there's a good chance that Sessions would never have even been asked the question.
Click to expand...

You're forgetting one big component...that Russia hacked the DNC. Trump's affinity for Putin simply adds to the intrigue but ultimately the hard evidence our intelligence community claims to have is why the question was asked.

Sessions most assuredly planned his answers carefully for the hearing. If he thought it wise to split hairs on Russia interactions (surrogate vs. Senator) then we should all question his wisdom, especially when the hearing was in the midst of Flynn's public controversy on 1/10.
 
Mr. Deez said:
In the sense that he could have given a more precise answer, yes, it is a self-inflicted wound. However, the entire Russia issue is the biggest self-inflicted wound because of how Trump handled Russia during the campaign. If you spend several months criticizing most of the world but then you kiss one guy's *** every chance you get, it's only natural that people are going to wonder why and be suspicious. If Trump hadn't done that, there's a good chance that Sessions would never have even been asked the question.
Click to expand...

This. Either Trump is in bed with Russia to an extent we don't yet know, or (more likely) Trump created that impression by kissing Putin's *** way too much.
 
Seattle Husker said:
You're forgetting one big component...that Russia hacked the DNC. Trump's affinity for Putin simply adds to the intrigue but ultimately the hard evidence our intelligence community claims to have is why the question was asked.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. However, if Trump had taken a confrontational approach to Putin as he did to most world leaders, then the motive for the DNC hack gets a lot harder to nail down. Furthermore, it gets much easier for Trump to divert the focus toward some other angle such as a possible leak within the DNC, which is what Assange always said it was anyway. People would still ask, but I think they'd be a lot less persistent pushing the Trump angle if he had been hostile to Putin.

Seattle Husker said:
Sessions most assuredly planned his answers carefully for the hearing. If he thought it wise to split hairs on Russia interactions (surrogate vs. Senator) then we should all question his wisdom, especially when the hearing was in the midst of Flynn's public controversy on 1/10.
Click to expand...

I'm sure he prepared, but it's not as easy as it looks. It isn't as though he gets the questions verbatim beforehand. If I got to grill you for 3 hours straight, I'll bet I could trip you up and get you say some crap that wasn't perfectly right if it's looked at in isolation. Lol. Franken's not a lawyer, but he's got some dorky guy like me on his payroll helping him do it.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I'm sure he prepared, but it's not as easy as it looks. It isn't as though he gets the questions verbatim beforehand.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it's easy but the Russia question was a slow-pitch softball. Russia's interference in the election and subsequent rumors of ties to the Trump campaign meant he had to know it was coming. Clearly the D's were trying to walk him into offering up recusal/special prosecutor. If his answer was to separate his work as a surrogate from his Senate duties, that was as dumb as Loretta Lynch/Bill Clinton thinking nobody would question their runway conversation.
 
Seattle Husker said:
I'm not saying it's easy but the Russia question was a slow-pitch softball. Russia's interference in the election and subsequent rumors of ties to the Trump campaign meant he had to know it was coming. Clearly the D's were trying to walk him into offering up recusal/special prosecutor. If his answer was to separate his work as a surrogate from his Senate duties, that was as dumb as Loretta Lynch/Bill Clinton thinking nobody would question their runway conversation.
Click to expand...

I think there are some pretty significant differences. First, as a senator and as a member of Armed Services, meeting with foreign officials is part of his job. There are plenty of legitimate reasons why they'd meet. It was not Bill Clinton's job to meet with Loretta Lynch.

Second, the location of the visit doesn't suggest nefarious intentions. It was in Sessions' Senate office, where there would be a record of the meeting, where the conversation could be overheard (perhaps even by federal law enforcement officials), and where people (including Democrats, press people, etc.) could easily see the ambassador going in. He didn't act like he was trying to hide something. Clinton met with Lynch on a private plane. We know about it by chance, and there's no way anyone with adverse interests could hear what was discussed.

Third, if Sessions was going to discuss something illegal, why the Russian ambassador? If Putin was hacking the DNC and coordinating it with the Trump campaign, it makes very little sense to use the traditional and legal method of international diplomacy to facilitate that coordination. It's way too easy to get caught, because the Russian ambassador was almost surely under federal surveillance. Frankly, Putin would be very foolish to even tell his ambassador what he was up to. If there was coordination between the Russians and the campaign, it would almost surely have been done through a secret intermediary, not an ambassador that has FBI agents who could tell you what brand of toilet paper he uses and whether he folds or wads it up when he wipes. Bill Clinton? He went straight to the decision-maker and the only person in the world with the power to give him what he wants.

Finally, neither Sessions nor anyone else was subject to a criminal investigation at the time of the meetings in question. Hillary Clinton was under a criminal investigation with the announcement of an indictment imminent. That's a pretty big distinction.
 
Last edited:
Sessions isn't in any real trouble. The Dems will bluster, but they don't have a case.

Apparently Pelosi and Co. don't understand that perjury is the willful and knowing commission of a lie under oath. If Sessions interpreted Franken's question to be had he had any meetings with the Ruskies while acting as an agent for the Trump campaign, he didn't lie under oath.

The Dems are just going through testimony looking for anything to discredit and humiliate Trumps's cabinet. Their ultimate and unabashed goal is to bring down the Trump Administration. They're not going to succeed and they're probably doing themselves as much harm as they are the Republicans.
 
Last edited:
Clean said:
Apparently Pelosi and Co. don't understand that perjury is the willful and knowing commission of a lie under oath. If Sessions interpreted Franken's question to be had he had any meetings with the Ruskies while acting as an agent for the Trump campaign, he didn't lie under oath
Click to expand...

And based on the wording of Franken's question, that was an entirely reasonable interpretation of his question.

And people need to remember that context and circumstances matter. If you're a congressman and you have $90,000 in your checking account, that doesn't look bad. However, if you're anybody and you have $90,000 in cash sitting in your freezer, that does look bad. If you're meeting with the Russian ambassador in your public office, that doesn't look bad. If you're meeting with a personal friend of Vladimir Putin's in an undisclosed hotel room that he checked into under a false name and who will only let you talk to him if you're blindfolded, that does look bad.
 
Clean said:
Their not going to succeed and they're probably doing themselves as much harm as they are the Republicans.
Click to expand...

Trump stole the election as a Russian collaborator, impeach, his cabinet should resign...rinse and repeat.

They're blowing all their ammo on crying wolf relentlessly on false charges that manipulate routine, legal actions into the Russian conspiracy narrative.

Only takes a day or two for non-Libs to completely disarm their false charges with facts and educate the public.

In the process they continue to look like petulant children who choose to be eternal sore losers rather than recognize DT as the legitimate president and work with their colleagues to serve the public.

They're making it easier and easier by the day to deliver a death blow in 2018.
 
Brad Austin said:
They're blowing all their ammo on crying wolf relentlessly on false charges that manipulate routine, legal actions into the Russian conspiracy narrative.
Click to expand...
Judging by what right wingers did during the Clinton and Obama administrations, I think the ammo supplies are endless. Alas, the rounds are only effective with the true believers.
 
Crockett said:
Judging by what right wingers did during the Clinton and Obama administrations, I think the ammo supplies are endless.
Click to expand...

So several Dems having already called for impeachment of DT and resignations of multiple cabinet members in the first 6 weeks of his term is comparable? :rolleyes1:

The wasted ammo I speak of is demanding the "I" word and for people to resign. Keep calling for impeachment and when something finally has legs half the country will dismiss it as more of the same bluster. And the next charge they make against Sessions will be diluted since they already went after him and failed.

Mind you, their assaults have not pertained to policy or legitimate potential scandals. They started with accusations of racism, bigotry, etc and then moved on to a false narrative of collaborating to steal the election with Russia.

The first charges are clearly slanderous garbage. The second plot was already investigated by their own King Obama and his findings found no such collaboration. Yet they persist like pouting children.

I agree both sides attacked and the only people they appeal to are the faithful. Yet, we're only 6 weeks in and the amount of wolf cries are unprecedented.

I don't recall anyone in Congress failing to accept Clinton or Obama as the legitimate President and calling for his head before the full cabinet was even approved.
 
Last edited:
Crockett said:
Judging by what right wingers did during the Clinton and Obama administrations, I think the ammo supplies are endless. Alas, the rounds are only effective with the true believers.
Click to expand...

You can't possibly compare what's going on right now to what went on in Obama's first few months as president. It's not even remotely comparable.
 
ProdigalHorn said:
You can't possibly compare what's going on right now to what went on in Obama's first few months as president. It's not even remotely comparable.
Click to expand...

I think Republicans definitely went overboard with it to their own detriment, but you're correct. Democrats are cramming the combined 16 years of Republican vitriol into 6 weeks. If you're a Republican, you have to like this and hope they keep it up. It's so over the top that to most fair-minded people, it looks contrived.
 
If you equate ammo to genuine expenditure of political capital you are missing the point. In these days of bs-driven media and political campaigns the dynamics have changed. Sure you and I can recognize the bs, but the true believers draw strength and energy from it. Critical thinking is left to the elite and is, sadly, more and more irrelevant.
 
Brad Austin said:
So several Dems having already called for impeachment of DT and resignations of multiple cabinet members in the first 6 weeks of his term is comparable? :rolleyes1:
Click to expand...
Perhaps it is relevant that the Pied Piper of the Birther movement that had a goal of unseating a legitimately elected president is now POTUS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top