And the Attorney General having a clandestine meeting on an airport tarmac with the husband of someone under federal investigation (at a crucial time within that investigation) is no problemo, right?
What person would fit that bill in the extremely polarized political climate we find ourselves in? We had a member this morning that wanted to hack to death another members wife and family in response to Trump making a speech that was widely praised. That's going on at the lowest of levels. Who in this nation is impartial in this day and age?Agreed, but it's only a step in the right direction. The trouble is that prosecutorial discretion then falls to various deputy AG's instead of Sessions. Those people are still in the chain of command that has the Whitehouse on top. While that's better than Sessions being directly involved, what we really need is a special prosecutor such that no prosecutorial discretion is vested in Trump's DoJ at all. Only then will the investigation be truly independent.
What person would fit that bill in the extremely polarized political climate we find ourselves in? We had a member this morning that wanted to hack to death another members wife and family in response to Trump making a speech that was widely praised. That's going on at the lowest of levels. Who in this nation is impartial in this day and age?
I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.
Because they are internet tough guys its real easy to be a tough guy when there are zero consequences.
Reminds me of last week when we had a conservative member brag about wanting to book a vacation while he watched a kid without healthcare die.
I don't believe any competed, rational person could do either but its very easy to act tough on the internet.
Now go off and suck a dick boomer you pussy.
/sarcasm
Please hire Sally Yates as special prosecutor for the extra lulz
What I'm saying is that resigning/shitcanning alleviates pressure for investigation, ie rug sweep.
What person would fit that bill in the extremely polarized political climate we find ourselves in? We had a member this morning that wanted to hack to death another members wife and family in response to Trump making a speech that was widely praised. That's going on at the lowest of levels. Who in this nation is impartial in this day and age?
What person would fit that bill in the extremely polarized political climate we find ourselves in? We had a member this morning that wanted to hack to death another members wife and family in response to Trump making a speech that was widely praised. That's going on at the lowest of levels. Who in this nation is impartial in this day and age?
What a load of apologistic false equivalency bullshit. Sessions had every right to speak to the Russian ambassador in September. He did not have the right to speak for the American govt because Trump had yet to win the election, let alone be inaugurated.
That's entirely different from back channel diplomacy undertaken at the orders of the President.
The real issue is that Sessions lied under oath to the Senate. He actually volunteered the lie as a diversion. Given his recorded testimony & now the admission that such conversations took place he ratted himself out.
GTFO, Jeff! You blew it, big time.
I understand the difficulty of removing your head from your butt, however you really need to.
Imagine, Jeff Sessions, US Senator on many committees couldn't speak as a government representative. Absolutely amazing. He sure as hell could represent official business. Not Trumps, and that's important to discover but seriously? Nonsense.
Find where Sessions could not deal with Russians in his official capacity as Senator.
I'm sure you'll try to bullshit your way out of that one. BUT BUT TRUMP?
No wonder you lost the election.
I understand the difficulty of removing your head from your butt, however you really need to.
Imagine, Jeff Sessions, US Senator on many committees couldn't speak as a government representative. Absolutely amazing. He sure as hell could represent official business. Not Trumps, and that's important to discover but seriously? Nonsense.
Find where Sessions could not deal with Russians in his official capacity as Senator.
I'm sure you'll try to bullshit your way out of that one. BUT BUT TRUMP?
No wonder you lost the election.
Like I said above, sure, any given contact or connection could have an innocent explanation. So when does the sheer number of them begin to concern you?
I understand the difficulty of removing your head from your butt, however you really need to.
Imagine, Jeff Sessions, US Senator on many committees couldn't speak as a government representative. Absolutely amazing. He sure as hell could represent official business. Not Trumps, and that's important to discover but seriously? Nonsense.
Find where Sessions could not deal with Russians in his official capacity as Senator.
I'm sure you'll try to bullshit your way out of that one. BUT BUT TRUMP?
No wonder you lost the election.
Yeah, but what about the meeting at the RNC? Are you saying he went to the RNC as his capacity as Senator and was doing US business at the RNC? False equivalency is as dangerous and maybe moreso dangerous than those who choose to defend the actions.
I have strong suspicions that wrongdoing may have occurred, but again this is about an application of due process as much as Sessions himself. I remember special investigations from before Clinton and they are serious business and I would not suggest repeating the process if I were not serious.
But there is what I think, what I think I know and what I know. Removal of Sessions or someone on his level is also serious business and consequently we don't need to "feel", we need to know. This isn't because I like Session, I don't really care for him at all, but the form does matter in dealing with him or anyone else.
Lawful and proper process? Yes, THEN decide how to handle it and if the violation warrants, adios.