Goodbye Sessions lol. How far does this go?

[Pop23]

You're thinking too hard.

Franken never asked Sessions if he met with Russians.

Absolutely true. But Sessions decided to answer Franken by denying he met with the Russians, and he said that under oath. oops...

Franken asked that:

If the rumored dossier exists, and you found that the trump campaign had contacts with the Russians, what would you do?

HIs answer clearly was:

"I can't answer that"

Any attorney knows they can't answer a hypothetical question.

It's really that easy.

If only Sessions stopped there. Instead he expanded on his answer.

Any good lawyer advises his client to just answer the question, and not volunteer any extra information.

You would have a point if the question that Franken oddly tried to frame was about the Senate and its workings and not about trump campaign representatives.

Pity, it did not.

Without it as a basis, Sessions is free to offer any information he wishes, and framed as it was, he offered it as being called a Surrogate a time or two.

Franken, in his brilliance, then had the chance to ask for clarification.

He did not.

Therefor, there is no basis for the claim that the answer given is not actionable.

What was Frankens question? Give me your short interpretation of it and then sessions answer. I'm curious how you heard it

It's in my above quote.

Frankens question was "what will you do?"

It was actually grammatically incorrect. It should have been, "what would you do?" But that's quibbling. Since it was hypothetical, the question should be phrased as such.

So how did a " what will you do" question get a " I've been called a surrogate and I haven't had any communications with the Russians" answer?

I think he deflected and pivoted right into a brick wall

The question was framed around an allegedly dossier. The dossier contained information on trump representatives in the campaign, not about the work of the senate (you missed that aye?)

No brick wall at all. And still nothing actionable.

Because you think, would not meet the states burdened of proof.

 

[g5000]

They have accused the Russians of hacking the election, and therefore robbing Hillary's chances of winning in which was a lie. This made the Russians toxic to anyone talking to them in the regular context of normal business, and if anyone so much as communicated with them, then they must be guilty of something or even guilty of a crime. If Obama accused the Russians of something they didnot do (hack or influence) the election, and has caused all of this trouble, then he should be brought up on charges. The Demon-crats used the word INFLUENCE because they know that such a word would be broad in scope, and in interpretation.. They (the Dem accusers for political purposes), figure by way of such a word that it would be impossible for them to be accused of a crime by way of this word used if it all backfired on them. They are carefully choosing such words in so that they can get away with what they are up to, and yet escape justice if their game is figured out. Watch the words they use, and then think about what is going on here.

That's it true. There is clear evidence that the Russians interfered with our election. There are plenty, even on the Right, that want it investigated, not because they think it changed the results of the election but because it's important to know exactly to what extent they interfered to provide an appropriate response.

Yes many in the left are completely politicizing the Russia situation to deligitimize Trump, but that doesn't take away from the reality of the situation.

No such evidence has been presented. All we have are a bunch of anonymous sources.

No information has presented about what?

No evidence has been presented that Russia interfered with our election.

Actually, Trump was shown the classified evidence, and he immediately stopped denying the Russians interfered.

The reason you did not notice this fact is because he is an expert huckster, and he distracted you on the same day by inventing the lie that five million illegals voted in the election.

And like a total rube, you fell for the misdirection.

 

[Pop23]

Being called a surrogate doesn't mean he is one. He answered Franken's question based on a bogus dossier.

BINGO

and therefor a hypothetical!

 

[Slade3200]

Sessions admitted to being a Trump adviser, but not a surrogate.

Think you got that backwards... Sessions alluded to saying he was a surrogate in his statement. Didn't say it directly but he said that he had been called a surrogate and he hadn't had communications with Russia.

Session admitted being called a Trump surrogate, but never admitted being a Trump surrogate. It may have been denial, but it meant Sessions never considered himself to be a Trump surrogate, and therefore wouldn't answer questions based on him being something he was in denial of.

Picture Trump saying he was speaking for the narcissistic megalomaniacs.

Dude, listen to it again, it's plain English. "I've been called a surrogate once or twice and I've had no communications with Russia." That isn't denying that he is a surrogate it is conceeding that he is.

No it isn't. Plenty of people in here have called me stupid and countless other names. That doesn't mean I agree with them.

You obviously don't agree with them but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

 

[Slade3200]

They have accused the Russians of hacking the election, and therefore robbing Hillary's chances of winning in which was a lie. This made the Russians toxic to anyone talking to them in the regular context of normal business, and if anyone so much as communicated with them, then they must be guilty of something or even guilty of a crime. If Obama accused the Russians of something they didnot do (hack or influence) the election, and has caused all of this trouble, then he should be brought up on charges. The Demon-crats used the word INFLUENCE because they know that such a word would be broad in scope, and in interpretation.. They (the Dem accusers for political purposes), figure by way of such a word that it would be impossible for them to be accused of a crime by way of this word used if it all backfired on them. They are carefully choosing such words in so that they can get away with what they are up to, and yet escape justice if their game is figured out. Watch the words they use, and then think about what is going on here.

That's it true. There is clear evidence that the Russians interfered with our election. There are plenty, even on the Right, that want it investigated, not because they think it changed the results of the election but because it's important to know exactly to what extent they interfered to provide an appropriate response.

Yes many in the left are completely politicizing the Russia situation to deligitimize Trump, but that doesn't take away from the reality of the situation.

No such evidence has been presented. All we have are a bunch of anonymous sources.

No information has presented about what?

No evidence has been presented that Russia interfered with our election.

It's only been stated by every ranking US official including Trump himself and his administration. At this point can you find anybody who has access to the intelligence that deny's it?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/us/politics/trumps-press-conference-highlights-russia.html?_r=0

 

[Slade3200]

Absolutely true. But Sessions decided to answer Franken by denying he met with the Russians, and he said that under oath. oops...

If only Sessions stopped there. Instead he expanded on his answer.

Any good lawyer advises his client to just answer the question, and not volunteer any extra information.

You would have a point if the question that Franken oddly tried to frame was about the Senate and its workings and not about trump campaign representatives.

Pity, it did not.

Without it as a basis, Sessions is free to offer any information he wishes, and framed as it was, he offered it as being called a Surrogate a time or two.

Franken, in his brilliance, then had the chance to ask for clarification.

He did not.

Therefor, there is no basis for the claim that the answer given is not actionable.

What was Frankens question? Give me your short interpretation of it and then sessions answer. I'm curious how you heard it

It's in my above quote.

Frankens question was "what will you do?"

It was actually grammatically incorrect. It should have been, "what would you do?" But that's quibbling. Since it was hypothetical, the question should be phrased as such.

So how did a " what will you do" question get a " I've been called a surrogate and I haven't had any communications with the Russians" answer?

I think he deflected and pivoted right into a brick wall

The question was framed around an allegedly dossier. The dossier contained information on trump representatives in the campaign, not about the work of the senate (you missed that aye?)

No brick wall at all. And still nothing actionable.

Because you think, would not meet the states burdened of proof.

You statement about the dossier makes no sense. The question was simply what will you do if evidence arises. Franken didn't ask about Session but Session dodge answering the question and ended up with his foot in his mouth.
I never claimed that he did anything illegal. All i was hoping to see as a result was Sessions recuse himself from investigating Russia and the campaign. He did that so i'm good. thats as far as it will go with him.

 

[bripat9643]

Sessions admitted to being a Trump adviser, but not a surrogate.

Think you got that backwards... Sessions alluded to saying he was a surrogate in his statement. Didn't say it directly but he said that he had been called a surrogate and he hadn't had communications with Russia.

Session admitted being called a Trump surrogate, but never admitted being a Trump surrogate. It may have been denial, but it meant Sessions never considered himself to be a Trump surrogate, and therefore wouldn't answer questions based on him being something he was in denial of.

Picture Trump saying he was speaking for the narcissistic megalomaniacs.

Dude, listen to it again, it's plain English. "I've been called a surrogate once or twice and I've had no communications with Russia." That isn't denying that he is a surrogate it is conceeding that he is.

No it isn't. Plenty of people in here have called me stupid and countless other names. That doesn't mean I agree with them.

You obviously don't agree with them but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

You're claiming that Sessions agreed that he was a surrogate. He clearly did not. It doesn't matter what your opinion of his relationship is.

 

[Slade3200]

Think you got that backwards... Sessions alluded to saying he was a surrogate in his statement. Didn't say it directly but he said that he had been called a surrogate and he hadn't had communications with Russia.

Session admitted being called a Trump surrogate, but never admitted being a Trump surrogate. It may have been denial, but it meant Sessions never considered himself to be a Trump surrogate, and therefore wouldn't answer questions based on him being something he was in denial of.

Picture Trump saying he was speaking for the narcissistic megalomaniacs.

Dude, listen to it again, it's plain English. "I've been called a surrogate once or twice and I've had no communications with Russia." That isn't denying that he is a surrogate it is conceeding that he is.

No it isn't. Plenty of people in here have called me stupid and countless other names. That doesn't mean I agree with them.

You obviously don't agree with them but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

You're claiming that Sessions agreed that he was a surrogate. He clearly did not. It doesn't matter what your opinion of his relationship is.

Its a pointless debate, doesn't make a difference either way. It was pretty damn obvious that he saw himself as a surrogate and it was pretty obvious that he said he didn't have communications with Russia.

You want to keep engaging in these pointless debates? Still trying to claim that Russia didn't interfere with the election? Maybe next you can tell us why up is down!

 

[francoHFW]

. So the questions were misleading, and they were carefully worded in order to set the AG up ?? Yes they were, and your post here confirms it. Now what penalties are there for intentionally misleading the Attorney General Jeff Sessions with an attempt to set him up in this way ? Franken should be investigated to see if there was any collusion between him and any of his colleagues in trying to set the AG up in this way. You people are getting caught in your own traps.

Think you got that backwards sir... It can be a crime to lie or intentionally mislead congress with testimony. There was nothing tricky about Franken's question, he asked what Sessions would do if there was evidence of Trump surrogates communicating with Russians. Sessions decided not to answer the question and volunteered the statement calling himself a surrogate and falsely proclaiming that he had no communication with the Russians. He could have easily said that he had meetings as a Senator but not as a surrogate but he didn't... Could have been a simple brain fart or it could have been an intentional deception. Flynn has already been fired over similar circumstances so this is a big deal.

For Sessions it could be a big misunderstanding and if so then thats fine. But he has said multiple times that he didn't communicate with the Russians and now there is evidence to the contrary so he is either mistaken, lying, or not being completely forthcoming. Either way, it is a fair discussion to have and worth investigating. He did the right thing by recusing himself from the investigation. I think thats as far as its going to go.

. Any question posed by Franken was carefully thought out, and was designed to trip Sessions up I believe (Franken not being genuine), and it was to make him "Senator Jeff Sessions" after taking the bait to appear exactly in the ways that you have now taken the bait on also. It didn't work though, because just as your brain is telling you also in this reply, that something isn't right, and you are inclined to believe Sessions in the situation it seems to me. Franken I believe, is or thinks he is a master of deceptive practices in his speak, and he has since perfected this art in his celebrity career where as fooling people is key, and then making them laugh about it afterwards is evil... He (Franken) figured his act could be applied greatly in politics, and he may have been right.

Your getting a little too far off the tracks here. Frankens question was clearly geared to get Sessions on the record stating what he would do if evidence was presented showing communication between the Trump campaign and Russia. Not that tricky. If you listen closely you'll hear sessions avoiding answering the question and volunteering the personal statements of misinformation that got him in this mess. Your finger point at Franken is misguided

. Your opinion, but I listened to the way Franken delivered the questions with his snake charming way.

You give Franken too much credit. He's a dumbass. However, he may have known about Sessions have a couple of run-ins with the Russian ambassador prior to asking the question. Obama probably filled the Dims in on that score.

The GOP black bogeyman lol...Yeah, those Harvard PoliSci SNL Authors Senators are dumb lol. Of course they had him. The weasel.

 

[Pop23]

You would have a point if the question that Franken oddly tried to frame was about the Senate and its workings and not about trump campaign representatives.

Pity, it did not.

Without it as a basis, Sessions is free to offer any information he wishes, and framed as it was, he offered it as being called a Surrogate a time or two.

Franken, in his brilliance, then had the chance to ask for clarification.

He did not.

Therefor, there is no basis for the claim that the answer given is not actionable.

What was Frankens question? Give me your short interpretation of it and then sessions answer. I'm curious how you heard it

It's in my above quote.

Frankens question was "what will you do?"

It was actually grammatically incorrect. It should have been, "what would you do?" But that's quibbling. Since it was hypothetical, the question should be phrased as such.

So how did a " what will you do" question get a " I've been called a surrogate and I haven't had any communications with the Russians" answer?

I think he deflected and pivoted right into a brick wall

The question was framed around an allegedly dossier. The dossier contained information on trump representatives in the campaign, not about the work of the senate (you missed that aye?)

No brick wall at all. And still nothing actionable.

Because you think, would not meet the states burdened of proof.

You statement about the dossier makes no sense. The question was simply what will you do if evidence arises. Franken didn't ask about Session but Session dodge answering the question and ended up with his foot in his mouth.
I never claimed that he did anything illegal. All i was hoping to see as a result was Sessions recuse himself from investigating Russia and the campaign. He did that so i'm good. thats as far as it will go with him.

You can't dodge a hypothetical.

It's hypothetical after all.

 

[Pop23]

Session admitted being called a Trump surrogate, but never admitted being a Trump surrogate. It may have been denial, but it meant Sessions never considered himself to be a Trump surrogate, and therefore wouldn't answer questions based on him being something he was in denial of.

Picture Trump saying he was speaking for the narcissistic megalomaniacs.

Dude, listen to it again, it's plain English. "I've been called a surrogate once or twice and I've had no communications with Russia." That isn't denying that he is a surrogate it is conceeding that he is.

No it isn't. Plenty of people in here have called me stupid and countless other names. That doesn't mean I agree with them.

You obviously don't agree with them but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

You're claiming that Sessions agreed that he was a surrogate. He clearly did not. It doesn't matter what your opinion of his relationship is.

Its a pointless debate, doesn't make a difference either way. It was pretty damn obvious that he saw himself as a surrogate and it was pretty obvious that he said he didn't have communications with Russia.

You want to keep engaging in these pointless debates? Still trying to claim that Russia didn't interfere with the election? Maybe next you can tell us why up is down!

As a surrogate

 

[NoNukes]

The thing is, it doesn't matter what it appears he talked to them about. He said he hadn't talked to the Russians, when if it was innocent conversations all he had to do was explain himself. Him lying, then backing up his lies by saying the reports are lies, just tells me his meetings were not innocent ones.

According to the article, Sessions was asked in his confirmation hearing about meetings with the Trump campaign, not meetings that were the normal condition of his job in the Senate.

Your lying tells me you are biased....... but we already knew that.

He was not at all transparent, you are biased.....but we already knew that.

 

[dannyboys]

In a couple of months Chrissy Matthews will be accusing Sessions of having once eaten beet soup.
What the moron LIBs are still missing is every time they attempt to make something up to discredit the Trump administration the LIBs lose another 50K Independants.
I can't WAIT to see how the LIB MSM reacts the evening of the 2018 Senate races when the REPs get a Super Majority.
Just in time for Ginsburg to croak and President Trump to name another REP SCJ.
You think you've seen 'Man-Brow' blinking. The bull dyke will be blinking like someone stuck a set of jumper cables up her ass.

 

[Claudette]

He was asked if he had any contact with the Russians.

Not according to the article. It said he was asked about contact associated with the campaign. How is your reading comprehension?

Justice department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said there had been "absolutely nothing misleading about his answer" at the confirmation hearing.

"He was asked during the hearing about communications between Russia and the Trump campaign - not about meetings he took as a senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee," she said.

He was asked what he would do if anyone associated with the campaign was shown to have communications with Russia,and he volunteered that he had no communications with them

I think in the full context of the question, there isn't much here for Sessions to be worried about.

FRANKEN: OK. CNN has just published a story and I'm telling you this about a news story that's just been published. I'm not expecting you to know whether or not it's true or not. But CNN just published a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president-elect last week that included information that quote, "Russian operatives claimed to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump."


These documents also allegedly say quote, "There was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump's surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government."


Now, 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 anyof those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I didn't have - did not have communications with the Russians, and I'm unable to comment on it.

I agree. The whole thing is a whole lot of nothing. Lots of smoke but no fire.

One would think The Dems would be more concerned with the 2018 elections since they have a lot riding on those elections.

They will need a lot of luck since they sure as shit don't have any leadership.

 

[Slade3200]

What was Frankens question? Give me your short interpretation of it and then sessions answer. I'm curious how you heard it

It's in my above quote.

Frankens question was "what will you do?"

It was actually grammatically incorrect. It should have been, "what would you do?" But that's quibbling. Since it was hypothetical, the question should be phrased as such.

So how did a " what will you do" question get a " I've been called a surrogate and I haven't had any communications with the Russians" answer?

I think he deflected and pivoted right into a brick wall

The question was framed around an allegedly dossier. The dossier contained information on trump representatives in the campaign, not about the work of the senate (you missed that aye?)

No brick wall at all. And still nothing actionable.

Because you think, would not meet the states burdened of proof.

You statement about the dossier makes no sense. The question was simply what will you do if evidence arises. Franken didn't ask about Session but Session dodge answering the question and ended up with his foot in his mouth.
I never claimed that he did anything illegal. All i was hoping to see as a result was Sessions recuse himself from investigating Russia and the campaign. He did that so i'm good. thats as far as it will go with him.

You can't dodge a hypothetical.

It's hypothetical after all.

Uhh, yes you can. If I asked you what would you do about immigration if you were president and you answered by saying that you like monkeys and hate liberals. I'd say you dodged a hypothetical question.

 

[Slade3200]

It's too bad Flynn didn't get this talking point sooner. He could have just said that he didn't talk to Russia as a Trump rep he just did it as a retired general.

 

[jc456]

The thing is, it doesn't matter what it appears he talked to them about. He said he hadn't talked to the Russians, when if it was innocent conversations all he had to do was explain himself. Him lying, then backing up his lies by saying the reports are lies, just tells me his meetings were not innocent ones.

. He didn't talk to them in the context for which the Democrat head hunters are hoping for. It's all about the context of the conversations as pertaining to the accusations or investigation in which is accusing someone of something. Now if what they are accusing sessions of, wasn't the context of his contact with Russian officials, then he didn't lie by saying he didn't speak to the Russians while thinking about the context in which the question was being asked of him. Nothing to see here folks.

They did not ask him if he talked to the Russians about meddling in the elections. They just asked him if he, as a member of Trump's campaign, had talked to the Russians. He had talked to the Russians while he was a member of the Trump campaign, yet he said no. It's pretty cut and dry. If he didn't talk to the Ambassador of Russia about Trump's campaign, all he had to have done was say that he had talked to the Russians, but that it had nothing to do with Trump. Sessions as a lawyer and a judge, would know this very clearly... that his answers are indeed a lie, despite how some want to read into them. His types of answers is the same type of answers that get regular citizens thrown in jail with a guilty verdict in a court of law.

. So the questions were misleading, and they were carefully worded in order to set the AG up ?? Yes they were, and your post here confirms it. Now what penalties are there for intentionally misleading the Attorney General Jeff Sessions with an attempt to set him up in this way ? Franken should be investigated to see if there was any collusion between him and any of his colleagues in trying to set the AG up in this way. You people are getting caught in your own traps.

Think you got that backwards sir... It can be a crime to lie or intentionally mislead congress with testimony. There was nothing tricky about Franken's question, he asked what Sessions would do if there was evidence of Trump surrogates communicating with Russians. Sessions decided not to answer the question and volunteered the statement calling himself a surrogate and falsely proclaiming that he had no communication with the Russians. He could have easily said that he had meetings as a Senator but not as a surrogate but he didn't... Could have been a simple brain fart or it could have been an intentional deception. Flynn has already been fired over similar circumstances so this is a big deal.

For Sessions it could be a big misunderstanding and if so then thats fine. But he has said multiple times that he didn't communicate with the Russians and now there is evidence to the contrary so he is either mistaken, lying, or not being completely forthcoming. Either way, it is a fair discussion to have and worth investigating. He did the right thing by recusing himself from the investigation. I think thats as far as its going to go.

Sessions decided not to answer the question and volunteered the statement calling himself a surrogate and falsely proclaiming that he had no communication with the Russians. He could have easily said that he had meetings as a Senator but not as a surrogate but he didn't... Could have been a simple brain fart or it could have been an intentional deception. Flynn has already been fired over similar circumstances so this is a big deal.

no he didn't. post where he makes that comment bubba.

 

[jc456]

It's in my above quote.

Frankens question was "what will you do?"

It was actually grammatically incorrect. It should have been, "what would you do?" But that's quibbling. Since it was hypothetical, the question should be phrased as such.

So how did a " what will you do" question get a " I've been called a surrogate and I haven't had any communications with the Russians" answer?

I think he deflected and pivoted right into a brick wall

The question was framed around an allegedly dossier. The dossier contained information on trump representatives in the campaign, not about the work of the senate (you missed that aye?)

No brick wall at all. And still nothing actionable.

Because you think, would not meet the states burdened of proof.

You statement about the dossier makes no sense. The question was simply what will you do if evidence arises. Franken didn't ask about Session but Session dodge answering the question and ended up with his foot in his mouth.
I never claimed that he did anything illegal. All i was hoping to see as a result was Sessions recuse himself from investigating Russia and the campaign. He did that so i'm good. thats as far as it will go with him.

You can't dodge a hypothetical.

It's hypothetical after all.

Uhh, yes you can. If I asked you what would you do about immigration if you were president and you answered by saying that you like monkeys and hate liberals. I'd say you dodged a hypothetical question.

who's playing dodge?

 

[Slade3200]

The thing is, it doesn't matter what it appears he talked to them about. He said he hadn't talked to the Russians, when if it was innocent conversations all he had to do was explain himself. Him lying, then backing up his lies by saying the reports are lies, just tells me his meetings were not innocent ones.

. He didn't talk to them in the context for which the Democrat head hunters are hoping for. It's all about the context of the conversations as pertaining to the accusations or investigation in which is accusing someone of something. Now if what they are accusing sessions of, wasn't the context of his contact with Russian officials, then he didn't lie by saying he didn't speak to the Russians while thinking about the context in which the question was being asked of him. Nothing to see here folks.

They did not ask him if he talked to the Russians about meddling in the elections. They just asked him if he, as a member of Trump's campaign, had talked to the Russians. He had talked to the Russians while he was a member of the Trump campaign, yet he said no. It's pretty cut and dry. If he didn't talk to the Ambassador of Russia about Trump's campaign, all he had to have done was say that he had talked to the Russians, but that it had nothing to do with Trump. Sessions as a lawyer and a judge, would know this very clearly... that his answers are indeed a lie, despite how some want to read into them. His types of answers is the same type of answers that get regular citizens thrown in jail with a guilty verdict in a court of law.

. So the questions were misleading, and they were carefully worded in order to set the AG up ?? Yes they were, and your post here confirms it. Now what penalties are there for intentionally misleading the Attorney General Jeff Sessions with an attempt to set him up in this way ? Franken should be investigated to see if there was any collusion between him and any of his colleagues in trying to set the AG up in this way. You people are getting caught in your own traps.

Think you got that backwards sir... It can be a crime to lie or intentionally mislead congress with testimony. There was nothing tricky about Franken's question, he asked what Sessions would do if there was evidence of Trump surrogates communicating with Russians. Sessions decided not to answer the question and volunteered the statement calling himself a surrogate and falsely proclaiming that he had no communication with the Russians. He could have easily said that he had meetings as a Senator but not as a surrogate but he didn't... Could have been a simple brain fart or it could have been an intentional deception. Flynn has already been fired over similar circumstances so this is a big deal.

For Sessions it could be a big misunderstanding and if so then thats fine. But he has said multiple times that he didn't communicate with the Russians and now there is evidence to the contrary so he is either mistaken, lying, or not being completely forthcoming. Either way, it is a fair discussion to have and worth investigating. He did the right thing by recusing himself from the investigation. I think thats as far as its going to go.

Sessions decided not to answer the question and volunteered the statement calling himself a surrogate and falsely proclaiming that he had no communication with the Russians. He could have easily said that he had meetings as a Senator but not as a surrogate but he didn't... Could have been a simple brain fart or it could have been an intentional deception. Flynn has already been fired over similar circumstances so this is a big deal.

no he didn't. post where he makes that comment bubba.

He said "I've been called a surrogate once or twice and I've had no communication with the Russians"
It's not a direct declaration but most people interpret that as "I can't speak for other surrogates but I'm considered one and I've had no contact...."
But really who gives a shit? This surrogate debate is worthless.

Just say what everybody knows. Sessions was acting shady and did the right thing by recusing himself. I don't think he should be prosecuted or even fired, although I wouldn't cry if he was. Now we can move on to the next drama

 

[Slade3200]

So how did a " what will you do" question get a " I've been called a surrogate and I haven't had any communications with the Russians" answer?

I think he deflected and pivoted right into a brick wall

The question was framed around an allegedly dossier. The dossier contained information on trump representatives in the campaign, not about the work of the senate (you missed that aye?)

No brick wall at all. And still nothing actionable.

Because you think, would not meet the states burdened of proof.

You statement about the dossier makes no sense. The question was simply what will you do if evidence arises. Franken didn't ask about Session but Session dodge answering the question and ended up with his foot in his mouth.
I never claimed that he did anything illegal. All i was hoping to see as a result was Sessions recuse himself from investigating Russia and the campaign. He did that so i'm good. thats as far as it will go with him.

You can't dodge a hypothetical.

It's hypothetical after all.

Uhh, yes you can. If I asked you what would you do about immigration if you were president and you answered by saying that you like monkeys and hate liberals. I'd say you dodged a hypothetical question.

who's playing dodge?

Sessions was playing and it was quite entertaining. He threw the ball, it bounced off a wall and hit him right in the face. Boom!