Watch right wingers bring out ALL the Dems. that ever met Putin...

[CrusaderFrank]

Trump needs to listen to JakeStarkey and charge these Progressive operatives with sedition

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then as I said, Sessions should have easily pushed it aside. Instead, he volunteered more information than was asked of him.

Somewhat dumb, yes. Perjurious? Probably not.

I've never called for perjury charges. That would require showing that he intended to lie. Nearly impossible to do.

I'll settle for the recusal right now and see where an investigation leads.

He's recused himself, so let's see what happens. Quite frankly, perjury is really the only thing they can throw at him, because it was perfectly legit for him to meet with the ambassador and they would have to prove he colluded on the campaign, and that would be very difficult.

It may have been legit.
An investigation would compel him to testify as to the nature and scope of the discussions in the meeting. Any transcripts or recordings of the meeting may also be reviewed.
It is odd though that Sessions was the only member of the 26 member committee to have met with the ambassador in all of 2016, while he was a member of the Trump campaign and during the height of the news about Russian hacking. He did not disclose this in either his oral or written testimony. He actually denied it.
That is certainly enough probable cause to warrant further scrutiny.

No. It's not probable cause. It's not even reasonable suspicion

The conflict in his comments warrants further investigation, yes, and it will happen.

 

[radical right]

So, IOW, you don't know how they did it, or even what they actually did, but you're sure they did something because reasons, and stuff.

Benghazi !!!!

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It will happen.

I'm sure something will happen. It won't be comprehensive though.

There is certainly quite a bit of growing interest in investigations among republicans.

What do you mean, growing? Democrats have been hiding stuff for a very long time.

What do Dems have to do with the growing calls from republicans to investigate the Russian connection?

Your statement, taken on its own, indicated that Republicans are having growing interest in investigations. To that end, the statement is false, because Republicans have been investigating democrats for a long time.

What, I'm supposed to consider the context of your statement and the things you thought were understood and didn't have to be stated?

If you open the quote boxes and look at the conversation, it's apparent that the context of investigations was around sessions and the larger Russian connection with the Trump campaign.

 

[hadit]

So, IOW, you don't know how they did it, or even what they actually did, but you're sure they did something because reasons, and stuff.

Benghazi !!!!

Irrelevant!!

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

FROM THE ALT-RIGHT SWAMP TO THE PRESIDENT’S MOUTH!

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

So, IOW, you don't know how they did it, or even what they actually did, but you're sure they did something because reasons, and stuff.

Benghazi !!!!

Irrelevant!!

E Mails

 

[hadit]

I'm sure something will happen. It won't be comprehensive though.

There is certainly quite a bit of growing interest in investigations among republicans.

What do you mean, growing? Democrats have been hiding stuff for a very long time.

What do Dems have to do with the growing calls from republicans to investigate the Russian connection?

Your statement, taken on its own, indicated that Republicans are having growing interest in investigations. To that end, the statement is false, because Republicans have been investigating democrats for a long time.

What, I'm supposed to consider the context of your statement and the things you thought were understood and didn't have to be stated?

If you open the quote boxes and look at the conversation, it's apparent that the context of investigations was around sessions and the larger Russian connection with the Trump campaign.

I was being facetious to make a point. Sessions is being demonized and accused of perjury by people who insist on taking his answer strictly in isolation. I was making the point that virtually any part of a conversation can be twisted to mean something quite different when taken in isolation.

 

[hadit]

So, IOW, you don't know how they did it, or even what they actually did, but you're sure they did something because reasons, and stuff.

Benghazi !!!!

Irrelevant!!

E Mails

Tweets. Hillary's email scandal did everything it could possibly do. It revealed her extreme carelessness with national security and that she is far too well connected to ever face prosecution. Helping to keep her out of the WH (without a visitor's pass) was a nice plus.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

The photo appears to be from 2003, when Putin made a public appearance at a New York City gas station that had recently been bought by Russia’s Lukoil. Schumer responded to Trump by highlighting the absurdity of his comparison, noting that Sessions denied having contact with Russia’s ambassador while he was under oath.
FROM THE ALT-RIGHT SWAMP TO THE PRESIDENT’S MOUTH!

 

[Avatar4321]

Well, the Trump haters are focused on collusion to impact the election (kind of dumb in my book because Trump was such a long shot),.

When criminals fix a horse race, or a boxing match, they fix it so the longshot wins.

Is that why the DNC rigged the primary for Hillary?

 

[radical right]

I was being facetious to make a point. Sessions is being demonized and accused of perjury by people who insist on taking his answer strictly in isolation. .

You have to combine his verbal answer, with Sessions written answer.

SEN. PATRICK J. LEAHY: Several of the President-elect's nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?"

Sessions responded, in total: "No."

 

[Avatar4321]

When criminals fix a horse race, or a boxing match, they fix it so the longshot wins.

And how again did they pull this off?

To answer how, you need to carry out an investigation.

So you need to investigate how something there is no evidence happened was pulled off

 

[Avatar4321]

When criminals fix a horse race, or a boxing match, they fix it so the longshot wins.

And how again did they pull this off?

To answer how, you need to carry out an investigation.

So, IOW, you don't know how they did it, or even what they actually did, but you're sure they did something because reasons, and stuff.

I'm pretty sure there reasons and stuff is because Hillary lost. It had to be cheating.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Trump Cites Photo Of Schumer, Putin Eating Donuts In Calling For Probe

 

[hadit]

The photo appears to be from 2003, when Putin made a public appearance at a New York City gas station that had recently been bought by Russia’s Lukoil. Schumer responded to Trump by highlighting the absurdity of his comparison, noting that Sessions denied having contact with Russia’s ambassador while he was under oath.
FROM THE ALT-RIGHT SWAMP TO THE PRESIDENT’S MOUTH!

Now if we take your statement in isolation, it would appear that you are saying that Sessions is claiming he did not have contact with Russians while he was under oath, something that would have been abundantly clear to everyone in the room, who saw him take the oath and that there were no Russians in the room for him to talk to.

See how these words games get interesting?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

So you need to investigate how something there is no evidence happened was pulled off

Is that why the DNC rigged the primary for Hillary?

 

[hadit]

I was being facetious to make a point. Sessions is being demonized and accused of perjury by people who insist on taking his answer strictly in isolation. .

You have to combine his verbal answer, with Sessions written answer.

SEN. PATRICK J. LEAHY: Several of the President-elect's nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?"

Sessions responded, in total: "No."

And, unless you can prove otherwise, that is a factually correct answer. The question was about the 2016 election. Leaky asked a specific question that Sessions answered.

 

[Avatar4321]

Somewhat dumb, yes. Perjurious? Probably not.

I've never called for perjury charges. That would require showing that he intended to lie. Nearly impossible to do.

I'll settle for the recusal right now and see where an investigation leads.

He's recused himself, so let's see what happens. Quite frankly, perjury is really the only thing they can throw at him, because it was perfectly legit for him to meet with the ambassador and they would have to prove he colluded on the campaign, and that would be very difficult.

It may have been legit.
An investigation would compel him to testify as to the nature and scope of the discussions in the meeting. Any transcripts or recordings of the meeting may also be reviewed.
It is odd though that Sessions was the only member of the 26 member committee to have met with the ambassador in all of 2016, while he was a member of the Trump campaign and during the height of the news about Russian hacking. He did not disclose this in either his oral or written testimony. He actually denied it.
That is certainly enough probable cause to warrant further scrutiny.

No. It's not probable cause. It's not even reasonable suspicion

The conflict in his comments warrants further investigation, yes, and it will happen.

No it doesn't

 

[hadit]

When criminals fix a horse race, or a boxing match, they fix it so the longshot wins.

And how again did they pull this off?

To answer how, you need to carry out an investigation.

So you need to investigate how something there is no evidence happened was pulled off

I fear an investigation into how I was able to sell my ocean front property in Arizona.