Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: wesfau2 on March 02, 2017, 09:46:43 AM
-
No one wants to talk about him?
-
No one wants to talk about him?
Nothing to talk about.
-
Not a single thing to say about it?
O.
K.
-
Honestly I haven't seen anything creditable from either side on it.
If you have, please to be posting. Figured after a day or two the bullshit stories will have died down and then I can shift through the real ones.
-
At first glance I think it's a witch hunt by the dems and media to discredit anything Trump or his staff does. But admittedly, I haven't read much about it.
But, this is the problem the dems and media have gotten themselves in to. IF there is any substance to this, people like me glance over the story as another hit job. What can you take seriously any more? I understand he may have perjured himself, and that on the surface is completely wrong, but to what point? What does it mean? Not sure yet. But my first thought was "fucking a they will stop at nothing"...
-
He was asked, during his confirmation hearing 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.
“I’m not aware of any of those activities,†he responded. He added: “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.â€
Now we know he did meet twice with a Russian ambassador during the course of the campaign. If there was nothing to the meetings he should have known to disclose any meetings he conducted under his official role on the Armed Services Committee. He did not, however, so disclose. Now he needs to answer some questions.
The funny part is that, as a lawyer, he should know to answer the question and shut the fuck up. That second sentence is going to bite him in the ass.
-
He was asked, during his confirmation hearing 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.
“I’m not aware of any of those activities,†he responded. He added: “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.â€
Now we know he did meet twice with a Russian ambassador during the course of the campaign. If there was nothing to the meetings he should have known to disclose any meetings he conducted under his official role on the Armed Services Committee. He did not, however, so disclose. Now he needs to answer some questions.
The funny part is that, as a lawyer, he should know to answer the question and shut the fuck up. That second sentence is going to bite him in the ass.
Was he an active member of the Trump campaign in an official capacity other than an endorsement? Does he have to disclose what he did as an acting US Senator since you know the answer to the first question is no? Which. Hunt.
-
Was he an active member of the Trump campaign in an official capacity other than an endorsement? Does he have to disclose what he did as an acting US Senator since you know the answer to the first question is no? Which. Hunt.
That's the problem for him. He could have distanced himself and said, "I wasn't a part of the campaign and I don't know if anyone in that campaign had any contact with the Russians."
But he didn't. He acknowledged (unprompted) that he has been seen as a surrogate for the Trump campaign. Then he said that he had no "communications with the Russians."
He had the opportunity to clarify. He did not. He must answer the questions now.
A lay witness could be forgiven for an incomplete answer. The would-be top lawyer for the US has to know that omitting any valid bases for meeting/communicating with the Russians is not a complete answer.
-
The funny part is that, as a lawyer, he should know to answer the question and shut the fuck up. That second sentence is going to bite him in the ass.
Agreed with this.
-
That's the problem for him. He could have distanced himself and said, "I wasn't a part of the campaign and I don't know if anyone in that campaign had any contact with the Russians."
But he didn't. He acknowledged (unprompted) that he has been seen as a surrogate for the Trump campaign. Then he said that he had no "communications with the Russians."
He had the opportunity to clarify. He did not. He must answer the questions now.
A lay witness could be forgiven for an incomplete answer. The would-be top lawyer for the US has to know that omitting any valid bases for meeting/communicating with the Russians is not a complete answer.
Because you say so?
No. He mustn't do shit.
-
That's the problem for him. He could have distanced himself and said, "I wasn't a part of the campaign and I don't know if anyone in that campaign had any contact with the Russians."
But he didn't. He acknowledged (unprompted) that he has been seen as a surrogate for the Trump campaign. Then he said that he had no "communications with the Russians."
He had the opportunity to clarify. He did not. He must answer the questions now.
A lay witness could be forgiven for an incomplete answer. The would-be top lawyer for the US has to know that omitting any valid bases for meeting/communicating with the Russians is not a complete answer.
Maybe he should have clarified, but that is not what was asked of him. Point is they asked him directly about the Trump Campaign and Russia, which he was not working for in an official position and not what he was doing as a high ranking US Senator on the Armed Forces committee.
Why didn't they ask him about the other 25 conversations that he had with ambassadors, including the British, Korean, Japanese, Polish, Indian, Chinese, Canadian, Australian and German ambassadors, in addition to Kislyak?
This is nothing more than a witch hunt led by Warren and Pelosi.
-
Here is the exchange in question.
https://youtu.be/2BpgHcanjCQ
-
Maybe he should have clarified, but that is not what was asked of him. Point is they asked him directly about the Trump Campaign and Russia, which he was not working for in an official position and not what he was doing as a high ranking US Senator on the Armed Forces committee.
Why didn't they ask him about the other 25 conversations that he had with ambassadors, including the British, Korean, Japanese, Polish, Indian, Chinese, Canadian, Australian and German ambassadors, in addition to Kislyak?
This is nothing more than a witch hunt led by Warren Pocahontas and Pelosi I can't Read it until it passes.
FIXT
-
Here is the exchange in question.
https://youtu.be/2BpgHcanjCQ
Looks like a bad SNL skit to me. Is that Stuart Smalley?
-
I've asked this before and have never seen any rational answer or explanation. Let me say first off, with regard to Wes' assertion, I agree wholeheartedly. It may be a witch hunt but come on, man. Sessions knows better than that. If you had two meetings with the Russian Ambassador and it had nothing to do with the campaign, then just say it. It's a non-story.
But my question is this. How exactly could the Russians have affected the election results in any way? Other than rigging voting booths, what possible effect could they have or have had?
-
Maybe he should have clarified, but that is not what was asked of him. Point is they asked him directly about the Trump Campaign and Russia, which he was not working for in an official position and not what he was doing as a high ranking US Senator on the Armed Forces committee.
Why didn't they ask him about the other 25 conversations that he had with ambassadors, including the British, Korean, Japanese, Polish, Indian, Chinese, Canadian, Australian and German ambassadors, in addition to Kislyak?
This is nothing more than a witch hunt led by Warren and Pelosi.
And I agree with this.
But like a lot of the things in the Trump organization, it should have been handled differently.
-
“I’m not aware of any of those activities,†he responded. He added: “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.â€
Now we know he did meet twice with a Russian ambassador during the course of the campaign. If there was nothing to the meetings he should have known to disclose any meetings he conducted under his official role on the Armed Services Committee. He did not, however, so disclose. Now he needs to answer some questions.
The funny part is that, as a lawyer, he should know to answer the question and shut the fuck up. That second sentence is going to bite him in the ass.
This seems like a technicality at worst that requires you to believe the vast Kremlin conspiracy extends to Sessions's office in Montgomery, AL in order to actually believe is a problem.
Pretty clear to me that the context of the question was about communications with Russia about the election. Franken specifically asked about communications as a campaign surrogate.
Him speaking as a Sentator on the Armed Forces committee to an ambassador, not only is irrelevant to the question he was asked, but was in no way secret and was on the record at the time of his hearing just as it is today.
Seems to me to be calculated to counter his measured, presidential address Tuesday night. Can't have more than 24 hours of a news cycle where he's not portrayed as an evil monster looking to decimate the US from the inside.
-
This seems like a technicality at worst that requires you to believe the vast Kremlin conspiracy extends to Sessions's office in Montgomery, AL in order to actually believe is a problem.
Pretty clear to me that the context of the question was about communications with Russia about the election. Franken specifically asked about communications as a campaign surrogate.
Him speaking as a Sentator on the Armed Forces committee to an ambassador, not only is irrelevant to the question he was asked, but was in no way secret and was on the record at the time of his hearing just as it is today.
Seems to me to be calculated to counter his measured, presidential address Tuesday night. Can't have more than 24 hours of a news cycle where he's not portrayed as an evil monster looking to decimate the US from the inside.
I think I love you so what am I so afraid of
I'm afraid that I'm not sure of a love there is no cure for
I think I love you isn't that what life is made of
Though it worries me to say that I never felt this way
-
I think I love you so what am I so afraid of
I'm afraid that I'm not sure of a love there is no cure for
I think I love you isn't that what life is made of
Though it worries me to say that I never felt this way
Your deflection of anything negative toward Trump is exactly how bama fans react when anything negative pops up about their Lord Saban.
Yes there is something to talk about. Like I said a while back, this is very serious, regarding a foreign government tampering with our Presidential election.
-
Your deflection of anything negative toward Trump is exactly how bama fans react when anything negative pops up about their Lord Saban.
Full count with the bases loaded and 2 out in the bottom of the 9th. He looks in and gets the sign. Comes set on the rubber. Here's the pitch!
THE WHIFF!!!!!
-
Your deflection of anything negative toward Trump is exactly how bama fans react when anything negative pops up about their Lord Saban.
Yes there is something to talk about. Like I said a while back, this is very serious, regarding a foreign government tampering with our Presidential election.
You know who tampered with the electoral process? The Democratic Party.
You know who didn't? Russians.
-
I think I love you so what am I so afraid of
I'm afraid that I'm not sure of a love there is no cure for
I think I love you isn't that what life is made of
Though it worries me to say that I never felt this way
I still have 420 reasons not to like Sessions, but Russia ain't one.
-
You know who tampered with the electoral process? The Democratic Party.
You know who didn't? Russians.
Nevermind the 17 Agencies that said otherwise.
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national
Another whiff by you. I'm sure you'll eventually hit the ball, but you continue to aimlessly swing away.
-
Nevermind the 17 Agencies that said otherwise.
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national
Another whiff by you. I'm sure you'll eventually hit the ball, but you continue to aimlessly swing away.
You don't know what the word "tampered" means.
-
You don't know what the word "tampered" means.
"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities."
What's shocking to me is that you and many other Republicans are okay with it. I'm not okay with Russia tampering in our election process, nor am I okay with all the trash from the DNC side.
-
That's the problem for him. He could have distanced himself and said, "I wasn't a part of the campaign and I don't know if anyone in that campaign had any contact with the Russians."
But he didn't. He acknowledged (unprompted) that he has been seen as a surrogate for the Trump campaign. Then he said that he had no "communications with the Russians."
He had the opportunity to clarify. He did not. He must answer the questions now.
A lay witness could be forgiven for an incomplete answer. The would-be top lawyer for the US has to know that omitting any valid bases for meeting/communicating with the Russians is not a complete answer.
In his position as a Senator, he had an ON THE RECORD meeting with the Russian Ambassador. If he was doing anything nefarious, do you really think he would do it in an ON THE RECORD meeting in his senate office?
-
His meetings were held as a senator and not a campaign supporter. Nothing to see here, move along.
-
“I have no doubt that perjury qualifies under the Constitution as a high crime, it goes to the heart of the judicial system.†- Jeff Sessions '98
Hmmm, wonder if he still feels he same way. I'm guessing no.
-
In his position as a Senator, he had an ON THE RECORD meeting with the Russian Ambassador. If he was doing anything nefarious, do you really think he would do it in an ON THE RECORD meeting in his senate office?
Great...now we wait for Danny Sheridan to release the tapes that were ON THE RECORD.
-
“I have no doubt that perjury qualifies under the Constitution as a high crime, it goes to the heart of the judicial system.†- Jeff Sessions '98
Hmmm, wonder if he still feels he same way. I'm guessing no.
You don't know the meaning of the word tampered. You also don't know the meaning of the word perjury. You don't know the meaning of many words.
-
You don't know the meaning of the word tampered. You also don't know the meaning of the word perjury. You don't know the meaning of many words.
Still whiffing away I see.
Russia did tamper with the elections. Sessions could be charged with perjury.
That's the thing I love about the truth. No matter if you believe it or not, it doesn't give a shit, it's still true.
-
Still whiffing away I see.
Russia did tamper with the elections. Sessions could be charged with perjury.
That's the thing I love about the truth. No matter if you believe it or not, it doesn't give a shit, it's still true.
Here's a word you know. Or should.
Shitposting
-
Great...now we wait for Danny Sheridan to release the tapes that were ON THE RECORD.
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/2013/02/incredulous.gif)
So…you're saying…it didn't happen…or…?
-
Here's a word you know. Or should.
Shitposting
Still whiffing and adding zero to the discussion.
-
Still whiffing and adding zero to the discussion.
Most of us felt #shitposting pretty much especially summed it up.
Train's still gaining speed. Apply for those gubmint benefits while you still can!
-
Most of us felt #shitposting pretty much especially summed it up.
Train's still gaining speed. Apply for those gubmint benefits while you still can!
You do realize you guys are just alike right?
-
In his position as a Senator, he had an ON THE RECORD meeting with the Russian Ambassador. If he was doing anything nefarious, do you really think he would do it in an ON THE RECORD meeting in his senate office?
Well, those ON THE RECORD meetings have transcripts, notes and a general record of the proceedings. Let's go to the tape and see. Unless, for some reason, Jeff didn't keep a record.
-
Well, those ON THE RECORD meetings have transcripts, notes and a general record of the proceedings. Let's go to the tape and see. Unless, for some reason, Jeff didn't keep a record.
Why? Because democrats are baying at the moon and don't understand that they lost we should do this?
-
Why? Because democrats are baying at the moon and don't understand that they lost we should do this?
Because the answer under oath was a lie. Inadvertent? Maybe. Harmless? Perhaps. But the Attorney General needs to be as forthcoming as possible in clearing up the misunderstanding. Unrelated to the Trump administration, Sessions has a duty to be trustworthy and honest. He's possibly breached that duty and the truth is imperative.
-
Because the answer under oath was a lie.
Wrong
Inadvertent? Maybe. Harmless? Perhaps. But the Attorney General needs to be as forthcoming as possible in clearing up the misunderstanding. Unrelated to the Trump administration, Sessions has a duty to be trustworthy and honest. He's possibly breached that duty and the truth is imperative.
Wrong
#witchhunt
-
Because the answer under oath was a lie. Inadvertent? Maybe. Harmless? Perhaps. But the Attorney General needs to be as forthcoming as possible in clearing up the misunderstanding. Unrelated to the Trump administration, Sessions has a duty to be trustworthy and honest. He's possibly breached that duty and the truth is imperative.
Gotta' agree here too. It should be simple. Just say you thought the question was solely in reference to meetings about the election. I met twice with the Russian Ambassador about hot, Russian midget teens into bondage and cheesecake and move on.
-
#witchhunt
Dude. It may be a witch hunt, but if there is nothing there, it can be easily cleared up. It needs to be.
-
Dude. It may be a witch hunt, but if there is nothing there, it can be easily cleared up. It needs to be.
It's bullshit democratic resistance by paralysis. Keep throwing shit at the wall, keep people from being able to concentrate on their jobs and getting things done.
At some point somebody just needs to say "we're not talking about this bullshit any more. Fuck you, Chuckie, fuck you Nancy, just fuck all you bitches."
-
You do realize you guys are just alike right?
No little prick, we are not.
You just got butthurt down the line somewhere and get your jollies off hitting me up for the same things others say, that you never even address.
But that's OK. Pricks like you neither make or break anyone. But I will never be scared to respond to your pathetic attempts to assuage your butthurt feelings.
Have a nice day now.
-
No little prick, we are not.
You just got butthurt down the line somewhere and get your jollies off hitting me up for the same things others say, that you never even address.
But that's OK. Pricks like you neither make or break anyone. But I will never be scared to respond to your pathetic attempts to assuage your butthurt feelings.
Have a nice day now.
Look at you. Assuage and butthurt in the same sentence? I gotta' say, that that takes a particular skill set to make that happen.
-
No little prick, we are not.
You just got butthurt down the line somewhere and get your jollies off hitting me up for the same things others say, that you never even address.
But that's OK. Pricks like you neither make or break anyone. But I will never be scared to respond to your pathetic attempts to assuage your butthurt feelings.
Have a nice day now.
I haven't been called a little prick since jr. high prowler CCTAU. Thanks for that.
-
It's bullshit democratic resistance by paralysis. Keep throwing shit at the wall, keep people from being able to concentrate on their jobs and getting things done.
At some point somebody just needs to say "we're not talking about this bullshit any more. Fuck you, Chuckie, fuck you Nancy, just fuck all you bitches."
At some point, wouldn't it be easier to address, give the reasons WHY Sessions didn't purger himself, and move on? If not, the dems and media will try and use this to discredit at every turn.
-
At some point, wouldn't it be easier to address, give the reasons WHY Sessions didn't purger himself, and move on? If not, the dems and media will try and use this to discredit at every turn.
They are going to do this about everything. At some point the answer to all of these hysterical accusations and fake news has to be va fangool
-
It's bullshit democratic resistance by paralysis. Keep throwing shit at the wall, keep people from being able to concentrate on their jobs and getting things done.
At some point somebody just needs to say "we're not talking about this bullshit any more. Fuck you, Chuckie, fuck you Nancy, just fuck all you bitches."
The Attorney General must be above reproach. Allowing ambiguous (at best) or false (on its face) testimony to stand undermines his role in any future investigation or prosecution.
This is about more than the Trump baggage.
-
The Attorney General must be above reproach. Allowing ambiguous (at best) or false (on its face) testimony to stand undermines his role in any future investigation or prosecution.
This is about more than the Trump baggage.
Somewhere Eric Holder is laughing his ass off.
-
Somewhere Eric Holder is laughing his ass off.
Maybe. But that means jack shit right now.
-
Maybe. But that means jack shit right now.
And it didn't mean jack shit years ago either.
-
Maybe. But that means jack shit right now.
Bullshit it means jack. It means everything.
All of a sudden the democrats and the media are screaming about integrity and accountability? Loretta Lynch just guffawed.
Why should Sessions or anybody else answer a single one of their shit accusations?
Va fangool
-
Bullshit it means jack. It means everything.
All of a sudden the democrats and the media are screaming about integrity and accountability? Loretta Lynch just guffawed.
Why should Sessions or anybody else answer a single one of their shit accusations?
Va fangool
If there were a valid reason to raise hell (and there wasn't anything of this level) and the R's didn't....then that's on them.
Allowing naked perjury from the AG is something I'd hope neither party would brook.
-
If there were a valid reason to raise hell (and there wasn't anything of this level) and the R's didn't....then that's on them.
Allowing naked perjury from the AG is something I'd hope neither party would brook.
Holder was held in contempt for Fast/Furious, wasn't he? Media didn't give a flying fuck then.
-
If there were a valid reason to raise hell (and there wasn't anything of this level) and the R's didn't....then that's on them.
Allowing naked perjury from the AG is something I'd hope neither party would brook.
And there was nothing of this level my ass
-
Holder was held in contempt for Fast/Furious, wasn't he? Media didn't give a flying fuck then.
Ok. Since no one gave a flying fuck about your false equivalency, then we'll just let the current AG perjure himself at will.
-
And there was nothing of this level my ass
Loving the straw man. Not biting.
-
Ok. Since no one gave a flying fudge about your false equivalency, then we'll just let the current AG perjure himself at will.
Hold on, Wes. I'm not saying that Session is squeaky clean, but you can't pretend that when the Ds were in power, the media treated them anything less than kid gloves.
-
Hold on, Wes. I'm not saying that Session is squeaky clean, but you can't pretend that when the Ds were in power, the media treated them anything less than kid gloves.
I'm saying that's not the point.
I'm saying we're dealing in the here and now.
I'm also saying this isn't a "media" issue.
-
If there were a valid reason to raise hell (and there wasn't anything of this level) and the R's didn't....then that's on them.
Allowing naked perjury from the AG is something I'd hope neither party would brook.
I frankly find it astounding that answering No to "Did you speak to the Russians as a Trump campaign surrogate?" can be construed as "naked perjury" because he met with a Russian ambassador as a Senator and Armed Services Committee member as is his job to do.
Also, how far up does this thing go??
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/03/02/get-real-democrats-there-is-no-good-reason-for-sessions-to-resign.html
Obviously, Sessions was talking about discussions concerning the election.
So what are the two meetings that Sessions had? The first came at a conference on “Global Partners in Diplomacy,†where Sessions was the keynote speaker. Sponsored by the U.S. State Department, The Heritage Foundation, and several other organizations, it was held in Cleveland during the Republican National Convention.
The conference was an educational program for ambassadors invited by the Obama State Department to observe the convention. The Obama State Department handled all of the coordination with ambassadors and their staff, of which there were about 100 at the conference.
Apparently, after Sessions finished speaking, a small group of ambassadors—including the Russian ambassador—approached the senator as he left the stage and thanked him for his remarks. That’s the first “meeting.†And it’s hardly an occasion—much less a venue—in when a conspiracy to “interfere†with the November election could be hatched.
Sessions also apparently met with the Russian ambassador in September. But on that occasion, Sessions was acting as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, not as a surrogate for the Trump campaign. That’s why the meeting was held in his Senate office. His DOJ spokesperson, Sarah Isgur Flores, says they discussed relations between the two countries – not the election.
There was nothing unusual about this: Sessions met with more than two dozen ambassadors during 2016, including the Ukrainian ambassador the day before the meeting with the Russian ambassador.
-
I'm saying that's not the point.
I'm saying we're dealing in the here and now.
I'm also saying this isn't a "media" issue.
Yes you are. And yes it is.
The reason this non-issue is a big deal is precisely because of the bellowing from the same media that swallowed their whistles during all of the shenanigans under the Mullah.
You can't be outraged and calling for investigations over every minuscule thing when all hell was shrugged off for eight years.
-
I'm saying that's not the point.
I'm saying we're dealing in the here and now.
I'm also saying this isn't a "media" issue.
In my mind it becomes a "media" issue when organizations like the New York Times remove quotes from Senators from their stories, when they are revealed to have met with Russian Diplomats themselves. That, to me, looks like a "witch hunt" and that Trump is right.
-
In my mind it becomes a "media" issue when organizations like the New York Times remove quotes from Senators from their stories, when they are revealed to have met with Russian Diplomats themselves. That, to me, looks like a "witch hunt" and that Trump is right.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C56zcAEXQAQcq54.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C56zb95WMAAP2YG.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C56zb_AWYAALVsM.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C580uWAWcAACJ6A.jpg)
-
Damn Chiz. Good stuff!
But to Wes' point, I still say if the meetings were on anything other than campaign/election issues, then just say so and squash this. That's the only thing that's lingering to me. I think he made a mistake in denying any meetings, intentional or not. But I can live with that if he just says "Look, I thought you were asking solely about the campaign. That's not what those meetings were about." It'll cycle the news for 24 more hours and we move on.
-
Damn Chiz. Good stuff!
But to Wes' point, I still say if the meetings were on anything other than campaign/election issues, then just say so and squash this. That's the only thing that's lingering to me. I think he made a mistake in denying any meetings, intentional or not. But I can live with that if he just says "Look, I thought you were asking solely about the campaign. That's not what those meetings were about." It'll cycle the news for 24 more hours and we move on.
That's what you're missing. Nothing he says is going to "squash this"
The media and democraps will keep barking at the moon.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C56zcAEXQAQcq54.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C56zb95WMAAP2YG.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C56zb_AWYAALVsM.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C580uWAWcAACJ6A.jpg)
hahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaa...fucking idiots...
-
hahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaa...fucking idiots...
I'd like to call for an investigation. Claire clearly fibbed. She besmirched the office. Recall!!
-
Damn Chiz. Good stuff!
But to Wes' point, I still say if the meetings were on anything other than campaign/election issues, then just say so and squash this. That's the only thing that's lingering to me. I think he made a mistake in denying any meetings, intentional or not. But I can live with that if he just says "Look, I thought you were asking solely about the campaign. That's not what those meetings were about." It'll cycle the news for 24 more hours and we move on.
But, he is doing that. He did do that. I don't understand why everyone is saying he's not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98O09gGFo3s
-
But, he is doing that. He did do that. I don't understand why everyone is saying he's not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98O09gGFo3s
I stand totally corrected. I need a cloth to wipe off the egg.
-
But, he is doing that. He did do that. I don't understand why everyone is saying he's not.
See: Barking at the moon
-
But, he is doing that. He did do that. I don't understand why everyone is saying he's not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98O09gGFo3s
EXACTLY...this is why Jon's take about the Media is dead on. Because even Snags is confused...no wait...he is always confused. Disregard ....Proceed.
-
EXACTLY...this is why Jon's take about the Media is dead on. Because even Snags is confused...no wait...he is always confused. Disregard ....Proceed.
We should all try to type slower for him.
-
All this to say, I DON'T like Sessions, and if there was a legitimate reason to push for his resignation based in reality, I'd be all for it.
His regressive authoritarian stance on taking marijuana laws away from the states is abhorrent in my opinion.
His views on civil asset forfeiture is maybe even worse.
I don't love his stance on the death penalty either.
But he didn't commit perjury. He's not a Kremlin operative. And he's not a racist.
Why can't these people stop "tilting at windmills", to borrow a phrase, and talk about real, actual, not made-up policy issues?
-
Why can't these people stop "tilting at windmills", to borrow a phrase, and talk about real, actual, not made-up policy issues?
Because there really aren't any.
The entire "Russian hacking" thing is fake news. You know what the real issue in that entire spectacle is? The Obama administration using the resources of the DOJ and other organizations to investigate their political opposition.
Every bit of the outrage over the changes to the immigration rules is manufactured and based on incomplete information and a false narrative.
Every attack that comes from the left is replete with fraud and lies. There's nothing honest about any of it.
Chuck Schumer is a douche. Nancy Peolsi is a deranged goat. The democratic party is in tatters.
-
But, he is doing that. He did do that. I don't understand why everyone is saying he's not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98O09gGFo3s
Case. Closed.
-
EXACTLY...this is why Jon's take about the Media is dead on. Because even Snags is confused...no wait...he is always confused. Disregard ....Proceed.
No doubt. It takes a lot to confu.....saayyy...wait just a damn minute.
-
Because there really aren't any.
The entire "Russian hacking" thing is fake news. You know what the real issue in that entire spectacle is? The Obama administration using the resources of the DOJ and other organizations to investigate their political opposition.
Every bit of the outrage over the changes to the immigration rules is manufactured and based on incomplete information and a false narrative.
Every attack that comes from the left is replete with fraud and lies. There's nothing honest about any of it.
Chuck Schumer is a douche. Nancy Peolsi is a deranged goat. The democratic party is in tatters.
(http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u1/miked0003/FB_IMG_1487565952814_zpsi6ipdynl.jpg) (http://s164.photobucket.com/user/miked0003/media/FB_IMG_1487565952814_zpsi6ipdynl.jpg.html)
-
I'd be happy if there's nothing here, but press conference =/= testimony.
-
The Obama-organized event in which Sessions met with the Russian ambassador is so salacious, secretive, and clandestine, that they posted a photo gallery of it on facebook.
https://www.facebook.com/pg/GlobalCleveland/photos/?tab=album&album_id=1105759579497225
-
http://www.businessinsider.com/bush-ethics-lawyer-painter-jeff-sessions-perjury-resign-2017-3
Everyone, take a shot of Makers when Kaos says that Richard Painter is a old senile man, that doesn't know anything, fake news, etc., etc., etc.
-
http://www.businessinsider.com/bush-ethics-lawyer-painter-jeff-sessions-perjury-resign-2017-3
Everyone, take a shot of Makers when Kaos says that Richard Painter is a old senile man, that doesn't know anything, fake news, etc., etc., etc.
Dumbest thing I've heard today.
-
Dumbest thing I've heard today.
https://youtu.be/-jGNzBfiTF4