Sessions had contact with Russian envoy

[PsyOps]

I never said anything about the Russians stealing the election.
However, Jeff said what he said and it turns out to not be true.

You would think a lawyer with super human question answering skills would have done just that. But instead he said he had no communication with Russia. You can continue to quibble about the meaning of 'course of the campaign' but that's a very clintonesque arguement. Particularly considering that part was preceded by 'any affiliate had any communication with russia'

You would think Franken would have framed his question better if he wanted a gotcha on Sessions-Russian ties. You, like LB, want him to be guilty, therefore - in your minds - he is guilty. I am an "innocent until proven guilty" kind of guy. It's how our system is supposed to work. It doesn't surprise you progressives constantly try to change the rules to fit your thinking.

 

[Midnightrider]

You would think Franken would have framed his question better if he wanted a gotcha on Sessions-Russian ties. You, like LB, want him to be guilty, therefore - in your minds - he is guilty. I am an "innocent until proven guilty" kind of guy. It's how our system is supposed to work. It doesn't surprise you progressives constantly try to change the rules to fit your thinking.

I don't 'want' anything. The guy clearly gave a misleading answer. As I have stated numerous times, frankens question wasn't even about sessions and the Russians. Jeff volunteered that info.

 

[Kev_Russell]

You would think Franken would have framed his question better if he wanted a gotcha on Sessions-Russian ties. You, like LB, want him to be guilty, therefore - in your minds - he is guilty. I am an "innocent until proven guilty" kind of guy. It's how our system is supposed to work. It doesn't surprise you progressives constantly try to change the rules to fit your thinking.

Like you were with Hillary's email server. And Benghazi. And so on ... right?



You are one confused young fella.

 

[Kev_Russell]

I don't 'want' anything. The guy clearly gave a misleading answer. As I have stated numerous times, frankens question wasn't even about sessions and the Russians. Jeff volunteered that info.

Mom: "Son did you take.."

(interrupted)

Son: "I swear mom, I didn't take a cookie this afternoon."

Mom: "Well son, I was just going to ask if you took the trash out."

 

[PsyOps]

It seems you are pointing out your own hypocrisy with that statement. I thought bill was wrong, just like Jeff. A lie is a lie. Bill was impeached. Shouldn't all the nonhypocites on the right be calling for hearings into the perjury?

The difference is, Bill eventually had to admit he lied. He literally got caught with his pants down. There is absolutely no evidence, except what you have conjured up in your little anti-Trump fantasy world, that Sessions lied.

You people were defending Hillary Clinton when she lied under oath about how many servers she had, how many devices she had, the classification that was on those servers... She clearly lied and the same democrats that defender her are now suddenly interested in applying perjury laws on Sessions. And you expect any of us to take you seriously?

 

[SamSpade]

I don't 'want' anything. The guy clearly gave a misleading answer.

Screw him. Sessions, unlike Trump, is a lawyer. He knows - usually - how to answer questions.
The Democrats have been USELESS this session as they use every opportunity to go ape#### over everything Trump.
He answered the question as asked, and Franken should be flagellating himself over the stupid question.

For crap's sake, do we think he plotted against the government in those brief moments he was in a room with a Russian?

 

[PsyOps]

I don't 'want' anything. The guy clearly gave a misleading answer. As I have stated numerous times, frankens question wasn't even about sessions and the Russians. Jeff volunteered that info.

Bull####. You decided he was guilty of lying under oath before any such determination was made; and still hasn't been made. It's right here in your post. That's not how things work in our legal system. You want him to be guilty. it's part of your anti-Trump mentality; that the entire Trump administration is corrupt and needs to go; one person at a time.

 

[Kev_Russell]

He answered the question as asked, and Franken should be flagellating himself over the stupid question.

Actually, he didn't. He answered a question that wasn't even asked. He told on himself.

 

[Midnightrider]

The difference is, Bill eventually had to admit he lied. He literally got caught with his pants down. There is absolutely no evidence, except what you have conjured up in your little anti-Trump fantasy world, that Sessions lied.

You people were defending Hillary Clinton when she lied under oath about how many servers she had, how many devices she had, the classification that was on those servers... She clearly lied and the same democrats that defender her are now suddenly interested in applying perjury laws on Sessions. And you expect any of us to take you seriously?

I'll tell you what. You find where I defended or excuses either of the clintons lieing and I will admit my hypocrisy. I didn't. But here you are in this thread showing exactly the hypocrisy you are accusing me of

Bull####. You decided he was guilty of lying under oath before any such determination was made; and still hasn't been made. It's right here in your post. That's not how things work in our legal system. You want him to be guilty. it's part of your anti-Trump mentality; that the entire Trump administration is corrupt and needs to go; one person at a time.

I haven't talked in terms of guilty or not guilty. I spoke about truth. Sessions answer was not truthful. He did have contact with Russians during the campaign. Even he and trump have admitted that he should have answered differently.

 

[PsyOps]

Like you were with Hillary's email server. And Benghazi. And so on ... right?



You are one confused young fella.

Using those smilies over and over adds nothing to your argument. And using words like 'fella' and 'hoss' have absolutely no embarrassing effect on me, or anyone else, whatsoever as you intend it to. I'm happy you feel bigger when you do this stupid childish crap, but it adds NOTHING to your points.

Hillary was in-your-face obviously guilty of what she had done. Then she added on to that lying under oath about it. If you all didn't have your very corrupt DOJ, with Lynch at the helm, she would either be in jail or serving out a suspended sentence. She would be a walking felon. The Obama admin had everything they needed to protect her.

 

[PsyOps]

I'll tell you what. You find where I defended or excuses either of the clintons lieing and I will admit my hypocrisy. I didn't. But here you are in this thread showing exactly the hypocrisy you are accusing me of

I haven't talked in terms of guilty or not guilty. I spoke about truth. Sessions answer was not truthful. He did have contact with Russians during the campaign. Even he and trump have admitted that he should have answered differently.

Look, I'm not going to dig back into your take on the Clintons. If you know she was guilty, fine! Session stood up in front of the entire country and essentially said what I have been saying throughout this thread - he answered the question he was asked. Hindsight being 20/20, knowing the hoopla this whole thing has caused, I'm sure he wished he had answered it differently. Only he, in his own mind, knows whether he lied or not. He said he was truthfull in his answer. Devoid of any evidence to the contrary, I believe him. You don't. You have no evidence that he lied; so you choose to believe he lied. Nothing else I am going to say is going to change that.

This is a dead issue to me.

 

[Kev_Russell]

Using those smilies over and over adds nothing to your argument. And using words like 'fella' and 'hoss' have absolutely no embarrassing effect on me, or anyone else, whatsoever as you intend it to. I'm happy you feel bigger when you do this stupid childish crap, but it adds NOTHING to your points.

Hillary was in-your-face obviously guilty of what she had done. Then she added on to that lying under oath about it. If you all didn't have your very corrupt DOJ, with Lynch at the helm, she would either be in jail or serving out a suspended sentence. She would be a walking felon. The Obama admin had everything they needed to protect her.

Watching your gymnastics is positively exhausting. I bet if you try really hard, you can spot your circular argument.

 

[Bann]

Using those smilies over and over adds nothing to your argument. And using words like 'fella' and 'hoss' have absolutely no embarrassing effect on me, or anyone else, whatsoever as you intend it to. I'm happy you feel bigger when you do this stupid childish crap, but it adds NOTHING to your points.

Hillary was in-your-face obviously guilty of what she had done. Then she added on to that lying under oath about it. If you all didn't have your very corrupt DOJ, with Lynch at the helm, she would either be in jail or serving out a suspended sentence. She would be a walking felon. The Obama admin had everything they needed to protect her.

Then why do you even waste your time arguing with him and that other one? They're only jacking you around while they argue every nitnoid point. It's so tedious.

The progbot dems are so out of their minds that they keep making A-BIG-DEAL!! out of every single breath taken by the current administration. We should make a parlor game out of guessing what they're going to get Chicken Little over next.

 

[SamSpade]

Watching your gymnastics is positively exhausting. I bet if you try really hard, you can spot your circular argument.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., asked: "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?"

What should be the correct answer?

 

[Hijinx]

This whole Russian pack of crap the Democrats have been pushing is nothing but BS.
We have several threads with the same Horse dung in them saying somebody or other called the Russians.

Not one iota of guilt has been shown.
Not one shred of proof of wrongdoing.

These Democrats a-holes say Sessions or someone else called the Russians and all of America is supposed to go OOOH he called the Russians
Only a Democrat liberal retard could turn that into a crime.

Put up some proof of collusion or STFU.

 

[Hijinx]

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., asked: "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?"

What should be the correct answer?

These a-holes are trying to convict the Trump administration with innuendo.

We have Obama sending millions of dollars to Iran so they can build their missiles and Nuclear weapon and spread terrorism and these a-wipes are after Trumps people for speaking to a Russian. We have Obama trading 5 terrorists for a traitor, and a person on the Armed Service Committee cannot speak to a Russian?


By the way, When does that traitorous piece of dung who got American soldiers killed looking for him get his trial?

 

[Bann]

I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh because I'm at work (and thanks to XM radio, I now listen to other news shows when traveling. ) and I don't always agree with what he says.

However I just saw a clip this morning and I agree with most of what he said here, and it dovetails with my above post joking about guessing what the Dems are going to make a big deal out of next. They won't stop. They're going to keep going - BUT I believe the mid-term elections will weed a lot of them out of Congress if they don't stop. (some will never be weeded out - like Steny Hoyer - because of the way their constituency votes.)

This story is not about Jeff Sessions. This story is not about illegal talks between Trump and his campaign people and the Russians. This story is about Barack Obama and the Democrat Party attempting to sabotage the Trump presidency and do everything they can to either render it meaningless and ineffective or to get him impeached or force him to resign. That’s what the story is. And that is what has to be attacked, not defended.


We have no reason to be on defense all the time. We won the election. These people are barely hanging on. This is all they’ve got. And there’s no evidence, despite a year and a half of allegations of illegal contact between Trump, his campaign, and the Russians. There is no evidence.

 

[PsyOps]

Then why do you even waste your time arguing with him and that other one? They're only jacking you around while they argue every nitnoid point. It's so tedious.

The progbot dems are so out of their minds that they keep making A-BIG-DEAL!! out of every single breath taken by the current administration. We should make a parlor game out of guessing what they're going to get Chicken Little over next.

I kind of figure the more I make them do their stupid #### the more fools they show themselves to be. The 'jacking around' goes both ways. You know the sport: shooting fish in a barrel?

 

[itsbob]

This has nothing to do with Russia really. It has to do with lying under oath. Had this been about the French or British or Canadian ambassador the outcome should be the same.

I remember a time when lying under oath on congress was a big deal.

You're exactly right.. NOTHING to do with Russia..

It has to do with the democrats getting Trumps address off of the front page.. and getting the morons and idiots to start talking about another made up conspiracy so Trump gets moved to the second page.

Apparently it's worked.. never underestimate the depth of ignorance of liberal followers..

 

[Midnightrider]

Look, I'm not going to dig back into your take on the Clintons. If you know she was guilty, fine! Session stood up in front of the entire country and essentially said what I have been saying throughout this thread - he answered the question he was asked. Hindsight being 20/20, knowing the hoopla this whole thing has caused, I'm sure he wished he had answered it differently. Only he, in his own mind, knows whether he lied or not. He said he was truthfull in his answer. Devoid of any evidence to the contrary, I believe him. You don't. You have no evidence that he lied; so you choose to believe he lied. Nothing else I am going to say is going to change that.

This is a dead issue to me.

And as we have discussed adnauseum he did not answer the question that was asked. He provided different information and that information was not truthful. Him sayin he was truthful does not change the fact that his answer was not the entire truth. If it was he wouldn't be saying he should have answered differently in retrospect.

I kind of figure the more I make them do their stupid #### the more fools they show themselves to be. The 'jacking around' goes both ways. You know the sport: shooting fish in a barrel?

I am not sure how you being hypocritical makes me look like a fool, but rock on