monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Greg Sargent addresses the issues as follows:

Quote:

Officials sympathetic to Sessions are now saying that he spoke to the ambassador in his capacity as a member of the Armed Services committee, and thus didn’t consider those conversations relevant to questions about the Trump campaign’s contacts. It should be said that this is not wildly absurd — it is plausible as an explanation. Thus, the Democratic calls for Sessions to resign on this basis strike me as overblown.

But even if you accept this benign interpretation of what happened, it is not tenable for Sessions to continue overseeing the ongoing investigation into Russian meddling and potential contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia. The benign interpretation doesn’t change the fact that Sessions did appear to mislead Congress about his contacts, whether intentionally or through a good-faith conclusion about their relevance. This raises additional questions about what happened in these conversations, and why Sessions did mislead about them, which is ample grounds for Sessions to recuse himself. After all, one of the key threads of the ongoing probe — which has reportedly determined there have been contacts of some kind between the Trump campaign and Russian officials, though no one knows much of anything about them — now may lead back to Sessions himself.

WP
All of which I think is quite reasonable.

2 Replies

@layman,

In 2016, Sessions attended a ceremony honoring Garry Kasparov, the former world chess champion, WHO IS A RUSSIAN!!!

He was seen chatting with Kasparov briefly at the time. This was NOT DISCLOSED to Al Franken!!

0 Replies

Add it all up, and what do you get?

Pretty obvious, aint it?

Sessions was conspiring to cede control of the U.S. to Putin, that's what!

0 Replies

@blatham,

Either he deliberately lied or wasn't smart enough to realise the relevance of his meetings. Neither explanation is good. Trump should try appointing someone smart who isn't a liar, but being honest and smart probably precludes one from serving in the Trump administration.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Either he deliberately lied or wasn't smart enough to realise the relevance of his meetings.

And that "relevance" would be what, exactly, dumbass?

1 Reply

@layman,

That he had spoken to the Russian Ambassador. If you need the bleeding obvious explained to you, you really have no business calling anyone else stupid.

Wipe your chin.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

That he had spoken to the Russian Ambassador. If you need the bleeding obvious explained to you, you really have no business calling anyone else stupid.

Heh, Dizzy, what's "obvious" to a psychotic aint exactly "obvious" to a normal person, eh?

1 Reply

Quote:

At his Jan. 10 Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing, Sessions was asked by Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) what he would do if he learned of any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of the 2016 campaign.

Newflash. Sessions wasn't affilated with the Trump campaign. The question was directed to Trump's campaign activities, not Sessions' duties as a senator.

0 Replies

@layman,

Normal people prefer the taste of cheese to that of butt.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Normal people prefer the taste of cheese to that of butt.

I'll take your word for that, Dizzy. You're the expert. On both scores.

Buttmuncher.

1 Reply

@layman,

Your new tagline is bang on.

0 Replies

Quote:

Sessions had 30 meetings with numerous ambassadors from April 14 through Nov. 11. Russia appears on the schedule only once – the Sept. 8 meeting with Kislyak. The day before, Sessions also took a meeting with Ukraine Ambassador Valeriy Chaly. These meetings took place a week before a seven-day unilateral ceasefire plan was accepted by Russia on behalf of separatist rebels it backed in the conflict with Ukraine.

Sessions met with the Ukraine ambassasor! Isn't that country next to Russia!?

He also met the the German ambassador. Isn't Germany next to a country that is next to russia!? Are you beginning to see the obvious pattern here?

1 Reply

Quote:

Ex-Gov. Beshear as pick for Dems’ Trump response was ‘mistake,’ House Dem says

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, who has represented Missouri in Congress since 2005 and previously chaired the Congressional Black Caucus, told MSNBC a day after Trump’s Tuesday night speech that Democrats picked the wrong man in ex-Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear to represent their party.

“I don’t mind saying when we make mistakes. And that was a mistake,” Cleaver said.

Beshear delivered a widely mocked speech during which he accidentally claimed to be a Republican at one cringe-inducing point. The response also featured a peculiar backdrop of people sitting behind him, near motionless, in a dimly lit diner.

Asked what Democrats were thinking when they selected Beshear, Cleaver was blunt: “The problem is, you’re asking about thinking, and that didn’t happen.”

Ya know a party is in trouble when they don't even think about who is going to represent them and what their "spokeman" is gunna say, eh?

Ya know it's a bad response when even a prototypical cheese-eater and left-wing cheerleader like Rachel Maddow disses it, eh?

Quote:

Former Democratic Gov. Steven Beshear’s response to President Donald Trump’s first address to a joint session of Congress Tuesday evening was so underwhelming even liberal pundits like MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow described it as “stunty and small.”

"The Democratic bench is so depleted they've turned to a 72-year-old former governor with absolutely no political future to give their prime-time response," Reed said a statement. "They literally have no rising up-and-comer to elevate. Out-of-power, leaderless, and in the midst of a raging ideological civil war, 2017 is truly a sad time to be a Democrat."

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/maddow-calls-dem-response-trump-speech-small-stunty/

1 Reply

@layman,

I don't agree that the Democrats didn't even "think about" who was going to give their official response to Trump's address though.

They thought about it, long and hard. If you wanna call it "thinking," anyway.

"I know how to get all the working class vote back! Let's get some old-ass white southern cracker to speak for us."

"Yeah, that will do the trick, sho nuff."

Nice try, cheese-eaters.

0 Replies

This whole defense of Session misleading denials of meeting with Russians reminds me of when Clinton denied having sexual relations with "that woman." We are getting into semantics. He should have expanded on his answer when he simply answered no by saying he did meet with Russians and in what capacity and when. After all, this was a confirmation hearing to determine his fitness for an office in which that office was already investigating the Russian election interference and general hacks. The senators deserved to know the whole truth and they could have made up their own minds whether it was relevant or not. It was not Sessions job to decide to what is relevant and what is not.

0 Replies

Let's suppose that Russia did come to Trump and say: "Hey, looky here. We have some information about Clinton that may help you win the election. You want it?"

Trump says: "Hell, yeah."

Where's the crime?

Clinton got "help" from plenty of foreign governments--to the tune of $100 million from various Arab countries alone. Didn't the Clinton campaign pay "operatives" to get dirt on Trump from the russsians?

I didn't see anyone trying to make a federal case out of that, eh?

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

Didn't the Clinton campaign pay "operatives" to get dirt on Trump from the russsians?

Lest anyone has forgotten, that trash that was eventually published by Buzzfeed (or whoever it was) had been distributed to virtually every media outlet and congressman in the country, and had been circulating around for months prior to the election.

All supposedly "true" information purportedly obtained from various russian spies. Paid for by Clinton campaigners.

They just couldn't get anyone to announce/publish it, for some damn reason.

0 Replies

@blatham,

Quote:

So, Trump's speech the other night drew 43 million viewers which is only 10 million short of Obama's first speech to Congress.

That doesn't count the millions of high-info Trump supporters who no longer patronize the discredited MSM TV stations and watched the thing on Internet sources. Kind of like riding around on a mule and claiming that people who drive cars don't exist.....

0 Replies

It is amusing to me that the whole controversy about Russia arises from Democrat indignation over an apparent hacking of the DNC e mail server through as pishing attack on John Podesta's e mail account that revealed his highly secure password which was "password". Evidently the FBI (or someone in gov't) was monitoring these efforts which had revealed earlier, unsuccessful efforts to penetrate the apparently more secure RNC servers. On discovering the attempts at the DNC, FBI agents fruitlessly attempted to warn the DNC on several occasions, but evidently never got a response from them. The successful Russian penetration of Podesta's e mail account revealed other DNC e mails confirming DNC collusion with the Clinton campaign to corrupt both the Sanders primary efforts and the debates in the final election, and possibly other information derived earlier from attacks on then Secretary of State Clinton's illicit and unsecured private e mail server in the basement of her Chappaqua NY mansion.

Now the hyperindignant loosers in the party, confusing their self-interest and offended vanity with the national interest of the country, are on a campaign to paint any communication with anyone in Russia on any matter at all with a supposed conspirtacy to hack our election ( very odd in that what was actually revealed was merely an effort by the DNC and its candidate themselves to corrupt the election process).

The truth is that there is much real and significant action in the worls and between the United States and Russia that has nothing at all to do with the pipsqueaks and functionaries of the Democrat political machine: they are not, contrary to their evident belief, the center of the universe.

Pathetic.

4 Replies

@hightor,

Quote:

Good, I'm glad he wasn't working on a deal. Maybe you missed blatham's post earlier and this story:

I've never yet seen anything from Blatham which I'd worry about missing...

0 Replies

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know