Jeff Sessions Denies Collusion, Stonewalls, and Deflect Quetsions

[Dashinka 25,885]

50 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

First of all some of us have better things to do than constantly monitor the political section of visajourney. Secondly Sessions was clearly being asked about meeting with the Russians in connection with the election and answered in that context. If he was guilty of lying I am sure the Democrats would have crucified him for it and charged him with perjury but since he didn't lie they know they don't have a case. I am sorry you have a lack of understanding of basic English but I can't help you with that.

They only tried to crucify him in the media since they knew that was their only avenue and they had willing accomplices in the biased media.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

2 hours ago, jg121783 said:

First of all some of us have better things to do than constantly monitor the political section of visajourney. Secondly Sessions was clearly being asked about meeting with the Russians in connection with the election and answered in that context. If he was guilty of lying I am sure the Democrats would have crucified him for it and charged him with perjury but since he didn't lie they know they don't have a case. I am sorry you have a lack of understanding of basic English but I can't help you with that.

I clearly posted the quote that you asked for. The one that proves that there was no gotcha question and that Sessions answered a question not asked and voluntered information that later turned out to not to be totally truthful (he met Kislyiak once, twice or three times although we don't know what was discussed. 

 

I don't think the testimony is that damning, just interesting in this context and at odds with the narrative that leftist have fabricated the need for an investigation and that there is zero evidence.

 

 

Edited June 17, 2017 by ccneat

[jg121783 3,921]

1 hour ago, ccneat said:

I clearly posted the quote that you asked for. The one that proves that there was no gotcha question and that Sessions answered a question not asked and voluntered information that later turned out to not to be totally truthful (he met Kislyiak once, twice or three times although we don't know what was discussed. 

 

Sessions was asked a question about the election specifically and his answer was in that context. He was totally truthful (unless he did meet with the Russians specifically about the election which is unlikely). There is nothing there. The left tried to make a big deal about it for about a week then they dropped it and moved on to the next made up accusation.

 

1 hour ago, ccneat said:

 

I don't think the testimony is that damning, just interesting in this context and at odds with the narrative that leftist have fabricated the need for an investigation and that there is zero evidence

 

There is zero evidence. A lot is unnamed sources and heresay but nothing that would hold up in any legitimate court. The need for an investigation was largely fabricated because there isn't any evidence that would justify wasting the time and tax money on this. Certainly not for 7 months and who knows how much money and still there is nothing.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

1 minute ago, jg121783 said:

 

Sessions was asked a question about the election specifically and his answer was in that context. He was totally truthful (unless he did meet with the Russians specifically about the election which is unlikely). There is nothing there. The left tried to make a big deal about it for about a week then they dropped it and moved on to the next made up accusation.

 

 

There is zero evidence. A lot is unnamed sources and heresay but nothing that would hold up in any legitimate court. The need for an investigation was largely fabricated because there isn't any evidence that would justify wasting the time and tax money on this. Certainly not for 7 months and who knows how much money and still there is nothing.

It was such a little deal, the AG recused himself from the Russia investigation. 

[Dashinka 25,885]

8 minutes ago, ccneat said:

It was such a little deal, the AG recused himself from the Russia investigation. 

So does he get credit for the recusal?  The last AG didn't do that and her discretion was much more visible.

[jg121783 3,921]

22 minutes ago, ccneat said:

It was such a little deal, the AG recused himself from the Russia investigation. 

 

That was an appropriate thing to do as it would have been a conflict of interest because of his ties to Trump. He showed much more integrity than Lynch who was involved in investigating Hillary even though she a friend of the Clinton family and even worse met with Bill to discuss the investigation in private.

 

 

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

1 minute ago, jg121783 said:

 

That was an appropriate thing to do as it would have been a conflict of interest because of his ties to Trump. He showed much more integrity than Lynch who was involved in investigating Hillary even though she a friend of the Clinton family and even worse met with Bill to discuss the investigation in private.

 

 

Speaking of no proof

[Dashinka 25,885]

1 minute ago, ccneat said:

Speaking of no proof

No proof that Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton had a semi-clandestine meeting in Phoenix?  I think that was well established.

 

[jg121783 3,921]

12 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

No proof that Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton had a semi-clandestine meeting in Phoenix?  I think that was well established.

 

 

They tried to hide it but they were caught. 

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

4 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

No proof that Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton had a semi-clandestine meeting in Phoenix?  I think that was well established.

 

 

4 hours ago, jg121783 said:

 

They tried to hide it but they were caught. 

No proof of "met with Bill to discuss the investigation in private." 

we dont know what they discussed just like we don't know what Sessions and Kysliak talked about.

[Dashinka 25,885]

2 hours ago, ccneat said:

 

No proof of "met with Bill to discuss the investigation in private." 

we dont know what they discussed just like we don't know what Sessions and Kysliak talked about.

Yes, but the decision to recuse oneself from an investigation is based on appearances.  We do not know what either of these AGs talked about, but the fact that one recused himself and the other didn't speaks volumes as to ethics.  

[jg121783 3,921]

3 hours ago, ccneat said:

 

No proof of "met with Bill to discuss the investigation in private." 

we dont know what they discussed just like we don't know what Sessions and Kysliak talked about.

It doesn't matter what they talked about. The fact that Lynch and the Clintons are friends creates a conflict of interest and Lynch should have recused herself because of this. Lynch had a greater reason to recuse herself then Sessions had but Sessions has more integrity so he did the right thing while Lynch didn't.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

7 hours ago, jg121783 said:

It doesn't matter what they talked about. The fact that Lynch and the Clintons are friends creates a conflict of interest and Lynch should have recused herself because of this. Lynch had a greater reason to recuse herself then Sessions had but Sessions has more integrity so he did the right thing while Lynch didn't.

How could it not matter what was said?  If Sessions met Kysliak and discussed US Senate matters then there is no issue.  If Sessions discussed something to do with the  Trump campaign he is a liar, or worse.

[jg121783 3,921]

1 hour ago, ccneat said:

How could it not matter what was said?  If Sessions met Kysliak and discussed US Senate matters then there is no issue.  If Sessions discussed something to do with the  Trump campaign he is a liar, or worse.

Your missing the point. Lynch is friends with the Clintons. Sessions it could be argued is friends with Trump. It does not matter what was said between Lynch and Bill Clinton or between Sessions and the Russians because the relationship between the AGs and the people being investigated is reason enough for them to recuse themselves. Of course it matters what was said in the meetings with both AGs but it is not relevant when they have to decide to recuse themselves or not because there is another reason to recuse themselves. My point still stands. Sessions did the right thing recusing himself and Lynch did the wrong thing not refusing herself. No amount of mental gymnastics or red herrings will change that.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

9 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

Your missing the point. Lynch is friends with the Clintons. Sessions it could be argued is friends with Trump. It does not matter what was said between Lynch and Bill Clinton or between Sessions and the Russians because the relationship between the AGs and the people being investigated is reason enough for them to recuse themselves. Of course it matters what was said in the meetings with both AGs but it is not relevant when they have to decide to recuse themselves or not because there is another reason to recuse themselves. My point still stands. Sessions did the right thing recusing himself and Lynch did the wrong thing not refusing herself. No amount of mental gymnastics or red herrings will change that.

No I am not missing the point

Friendship or acquaintance alone is not a reason for recuse, you need something specific to recuse your self from.  A potential or perception of conflict of interest.  Bill Clinton screwed up when he "bumped into" Loretta Lynch and it cost his wife the election.  Even taking them at their word, recusal  was the right step for Lynch. 

 

And why did Sessions recuse himself?  Not because Trump is his friend,as far as we know the President is not under investigation.

 

 

Edited June 18, 2017 by ccneat