Reply With Quote
Some Dems are asking the LIAR SESSIONS to resign as AG.
All most people are asking for, Republican and Democrat, is for Sessions to recuse himself from the ongoing investigations into alleged Russian involvement in the 2016 campaign.
He took an individual meeting with a Russian ambassador while he was an advisor to the Trump campaign and decided it wasn't relevant to bring up when asked if he had communicated with the Russian government in the course of the campaign. To be honest, it's a legitimate request for him to recuse himself whether that conversation happened or not... simply based on his involvement in the campaign.
I'm not sure why you guys are falling on the sword for him on this. It would be one thing if we were discussing criminal charges but all that's really being asked for is an untainted investigation. If you think all of the Russia stuff is such a joke, you should welcome this.
Some Dems are asking the LIAR SESSIONS to resign as AG.
there are people saying he perjured himself, which is a criminal charge
I'm not a dem but I'd like for him to go to jail
Sure, and there are also people like boutons who want him drawn and quartered, but I don't think the argument we should be having is prison vs. status quo. First step is recusal.
Except he didn't lie.
Yeah it's seeming that way. The mob may need to take a step back from the pitchforks for a second.
Dude ed up.
This isnt going away.
Trump needs to release his tax returns, condemn Russian aggression and then the media will let up on the Russia connection.
But, of course, thats never going to happen. He's under eternal "audit" and the worst he said about Russia was "not good" during a press conference.
Rofl law newz
Board libzBoard libs fixating on the (admittedly horrible) name of a website because they can't defend their argument that Sessions lied.
he HID the FACT that he talked to the Russian, aka, LIE OF OMISSION.
As an admitted surrogate and campaign architect for Trash's campaign.
Link of the video with time index please.
Did you watch the video?
It's on C-Span, and I didn't see that.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 03-02-2017 at 03:20 PM.
All he has to do is be still and everything will be okay.
That's how SoS Clinton remained SoS.
How is it a lie of omission? He wasn't asked about his duties with the Armed Forces Committee. He was asked whether or not he met with Russia on behalf of the Trump campaign. Meetings with the Russian ambassador that weren't related to Trump or the election are completely irrelevant to what Franken was asking.
Just because you and all other liberals are too stupid to understand the context of a question doesn't mean Sessions lied.
Jeff Sessions was a leading Russia hawk. Then he signed on with Donald Trump.
What makes the Sessions-Kislyak meetings even more remarkable is that Sessions, for nearly 20 years, was considered among the most reliably hard-line of Russia hawks in the Senate.
That position began to change as the Alabama senator moved closer to candidate Donald Trump during the 2016 election cycle.
By the time he was fully a member of the Trump team, Sessions had changed his messaging on Russia so notably that it became a point of reportorial interest, with USA Today noting that his “tough talk about the threat Russia poses to the U.S. and its allies in Europe” had “undergone some revisions.”
What changed for Jeff Sessions when he entered Trump’s orbit that turned him from a Russia hawk into someone eager to do business with the Kremlin?
And what does all this coziness between Trump administration surrogates and Moscow mean for US policy, the election, and the country?
Sessions used to warn that Putin wanted to put countries back under the “Soviet boot”
As a senator, Jeff Sessions was long known for tough talk on Russia and for advocating a strong missile defense system (in no small part because some of that industry is located in Alabama).
On the Senate floor in September 2008, Sessions detailed his thinking on the matter:
Russia's recent actions in Georgia remind us that country, which we once hoped was on a path to greater integration into the global world community, might again be seeking to restore old Soviet ideas of dominance throughout their neighbors and in Eastern Europe, all of which should serve as a motivation to move ahead with the necessary capabilities to defend ourselves and our allies from missile attack, in particular.
In the same speech, he complimented the Czech Republic and Poland for establishing missile shields against the “big neighbor to the East,” Russia.
He then turned to Russian President Vladimir Putin, who had just threatened to take action against former Eastern bloc nations that planned to house NATO missile defense systems on their territory.
I would suggest something more is at stake here, and I think it is something that the Poles and the Czechs and the Georgians and the Ukrainians and the Estonians and the Latvians and the Lithuanians understand full well, and that is that Putin desires to reestablish hegemony over the former Soviet satellites.
They think they have a right to tell Poland whether to undertake a military partnership with the United States.
They have no right whatsoever to do so. Poland is glad to be rid of them.
They are glad to be out from under the Soviet boot.
They have no intention whatsoever of allowing themselves to fall back under their dominance.
They have values that are close to our values.
They want to be part of our heritage and the Western heritage.
Those weren’t just words. Sessions was a Russia hawk when it came to legislation as well.
Sessions’s public criticism of Putin shaped how he voted in the Senate
In 2010, the Alabama senator voted against the New START treaty reducing nuclear weapons, arguing it made the United States too vulnerable. He made it very clear he felt the Russians were given too much in the deal, and the United States not enough.
“The Russians did not win with missile defense,” he said during debates over the treaty.
“They have already won and have attempted to codify it with this treaty.”
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politi...erjury-recusal
So Trash and his team compromisled, "turned" Sessions from a hawk against Russia into a Pootin fellator.
I wonder what bait Trash offered Sessions to get him to endorse Trash so early, and to switch from Russia hawk to dove? AG?
That [keep your doctor/keep your plan thingy].
Why should he have to recuse himself when he's done nothing wrong?
And the idea that a recusal will be enough to appease the left and the cuckservatives is hilarious. Give them an inch and they'll take ten miles. They won't be happy until Sessions gets Mike Flynned. Actually, they won't be happy until Trump's whole cabinet is replaced by status-quo globalists.
Though while the Dems are covering the front door Tim Perry was just seen going into the EPA with a Savage over & under.
Recusal isn't an admission of guilt, it's an admission of potential conflict of interest.
Slippery slope fallacy. If he recuses himself and no proof is found of any wrongdoing, they will have egg on their faces.And the idea that a recusal will be enough to appease the left and the cuckservatives is hilarious. Give them an inch and they'll take ten miles. They won't be happy until Sessions gets Mike Flynned. Actually, they won't be happy until Trump's whole cabinet is replaced by status-quo globalists.
that wasn't under oath
He had a brief conversation with a foreign official as part of his job. Sessions isn't an idiot, there's zero reason to believe that this would be enough to bias his investigation in any way.
Not a fallacy. Just an understanding of how the political game is played. Cucking yourself never appeases the angry mob, it only emboldens them to keep pushing for more concessions.Slippery slope fallacy. If he recuses himself and no proof is found of any wrongdoing, they will have egg on their faces.
He was a major policy advisor to the Trump campaign for more than a year before the election, and he's supposed to be trusted to conduct a fair review of an investigation into the Trump campaign?
The call is just more smoke. He should have recused himself even before this even came to light.
Yes, it was. He stood where Trump would stand and took the oath of office.
Hussein Obama lied. Sure, it wasn't about meeting Russians. It was only about billions of dollars robbed from millions of Americans.
Those of you accusing, prove it.
Time index please.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?420932...g-day-1-part-4
Unless you want to remain useful stupid ignorant tools of propaganda
Taking an oath and being under oath are not the same cub. Being under oath is when you swear to tell the truth under the risk of perjury.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
