For the good of the country, Sessions should resign

Since when does Jeff Sessions have an "impeccable reputation," my friend? Do I have to link you to an article delineating his racist past, or are you going to retract that statement?

 

My point is, the fact that he didn't brings up serious questions about his ability and intelligence. Sessions is a former prosecutor. He knows the importance of truthful and complete answers, and there is no reason why he should be surprised at Franken's allegations. They have been around since summer.

In other words, he is either stupid or guilty as charged. Those are the only two choices. Which is it?

 

Well that's it then. Did Loretta Lynch resign after meeting with Bill Clinton in Phoenix while Hillary AND the Clinton foundation was under investigation? No. So don't hold your breth waiting for Sessions to. His stance on immigration has ya'all scared to death, no more importing Democrat voters from South of the border.

 

You read the OP. There is a lot more than Sessions meeting with the Russian ambassador and his replies to Franken. I noticed you didn't challenge any of the evidence provided. You simply ignored it then changed the subject. "Do crazed Democrats want us to shut down diplomatic relations with the only other global nuclear Super-Power?" That is a gross exaggeration of the evidence provided along with a giant leap of logic. Did I say the ludicrous question had nothing to do with the subject topic?

That was followed by pointless name-calling and personal attacks.

Then you followed up with an unsupported lie. "The Obama administration sought, and eventually obtained, authorization to eavesdrop on the Trump campaign; continued monitoring the Trump team even when no evidence of wrongdoing was found ..."

In other words, you did everything but deal with the subject of this thread, evidence that Trump's team coordinated the Russian hacking with their activities which includes Trump's own plea to the Russians. How stupid can you get?

Put a different way, this is a typical post from a Trump admirer, long on insults, short on the truth while being oblivious of the subject matter.

 

I noticed you had no comment of the strong evidence that Sessions committed an indiscretion. Look at his answer to Franken. Sessions is a former prosecutor. He knows the importance of an accurate and complete answer under oath. His answer was either a lie or he was confused. Those are the only two choices.

Which means he is either stupid or he committed perjury, a felony.

Those are the only two choices.

In either case, he should resign. He either committed a crime or he is too stupid to be the nation's attorney general.

 

Zorro completely ignored the fact that if a "private citizen" interfered with American foreign policy with an enemy power, that is a crime. The circumstantial evidence is compelling. On the same day Obama imposed sanctions, Flynn and the Russian ambassador talked. The very next day something very odd happened. Extremely uncharacteristically, Putin did not retaliate. Instead, he invited Americans living in Moscow to a Christmas party.

The invitation is very strange. We know Putin today is jumping with glee over the sweeping controversies in the American government, mostly caused by him. Was the invitation, which became public immediately, a signal to the American news media that there was collusion between he, Putin, and the Trump team? Was it a signal that a deal was made?

Take away those explanations and Putin's actions become inexplicable.

 

Then you should know you don't answer questions you are not asked. BTW, all 100 senators had contact with the Russians so Sessions is in good company.

 

Potential Obama Wiretapping Is “Soviet-Level Wrongdoing”.

Lieutenant Colonel Tony Schaffer addressed concerns about the Obama administration wire tapping President Trump during the 2016 Presidential campaign. The Colonel stated:

this is Soviet level wrongdoing….The Obama Administration was taking on the form using their version of the FSB, or the KGB, to go and target a candidate. Let me be very clear on this, simply because you don’t like someone does not give you the right as the sitting President to do something like this….

We can all certainly agree on that! Hopefully Obama's denials of this horrific crime against the American People and our long cherished fair and free electoral processes continues to hold up.

Schaffer went on to say that this is completely ‘insidious’ and the order of the ‘magnitude of Watergate’.

This is could turn out to be another illegal action of the corrupt Democrat Obama Administration.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...nsidious-obama-administration-targeted-trump/

 

Okay, I offer the following comments.

(1) Did the Russians hack into systems that they shouldn't have? Most certainly.

(2) Did information brought to light by way of the Russian hacks influence the way people voted? Most certainly.

(3) Are the Russians to blame for the way people reacted to news that the DNC was in bed with the Clinton campaign? No. The blame for that falls squarely on the DNC and the Clinton campaign.

(4) Would Americans have been happier had the information revealed to them through Wikileaks come from a domestic source, rather than Russian hackers? Absolutely.

(5) Does the information released via Wikileaks diminish the legitimacy of Donald Trump's presidency in any way? No, it does not.

(6) Should Attorney General Sessions recuse himself from all investigations into what occurred during the campaign? Yes he should. And he has.

(7) If Donald Trump and/or the RNC coordinated with the Russians in any way during the campaign, will investigators be able to find evidence that that occurred? Yes, if such coordination occurred, the FBI will find evidence of it. I'm sure there are all kinds of people looking at all kinds of information to see what they can find. Let the investigation(s) take place, and let the chips fall where they may.

Those are my comments, FWIW...

 

I agree, it is getting tiresome. However, Sessions is a former prosecutor. He knows the importance of accurate and complete answers under oath, especially when one is before a Senate confirmation hearing. His answer to Franken was neither accurate nor complete. That means he was either lying or he is incompetent. In either case he should resigned or be fired.

 

And they are good comments. You presented an interesting point of view. I don't agree entirely with it, but it was interesting.

 

The leaks were truthful for the most part, and it doesn't matter if they came from Wikileaks or the MSM. The fact remains, the Russian hacking influenced the election in favor of Trump. Now to the issue at hand. Did the Trump team coordinate activities with the Russians?

Many still ignore the evidence. Denying the evidence does not make it so. Do they expect a member of the Trump team to come forward and admit coordination with the Russians? That is very unlikely. Do they expect the FBI to release the transcript of the conversation between Flynn and Kislyak? Again, not likely, the White House controls the FBI. Do they expect the Senate and House investigating committees to be more forthcoming? Not likely, they are controlled by the President's party. Perhaps a review is in order. What do we know?

We know one member of Trump's staff coordinated with the Russians and made a deal. Flynn spoke with Kislyak the same day the sanctions were imposed; they spoke about the sanctions, and the very next day Putin refused to retaliate, an extraordinary out of character decision. For this Flynn was fired.

We know Sessions spoke with Kislyak twice during the election campaign and never spoke with him prior to the campaign.

We know that, of the 26 members of the Armed Services Committee, only Sessions spoke with the Russian ambassador in 2016.

We know that Sessions either lied in the Senate confirmation hearing or was too incompetent to provide an accurate and complete answer despite being a former prosecutor and knowing full-well the importance of a complete answer under oath.

We know that other members of Trump's staff coordinated with the Russians. They would include D. Gordon, Carter Page, Paul Manafort, and Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner.

We don't know if Trump has any business dealings with Russia because he is hiding his tax returns from Congress and the American people.

We know these are all facts, not speculation or opinion.

Did Trump's staff coordinate activities with the Russians? You be the judge.

 

I've judged the facts. The left is unhinged and doing everything they can to damage this President and everyone that serves our nation. Y'all should be ashamed of yourselves, but there is nothing patriotic in any of the left that would recognize the evil they are spewing and the damage they are doing to their country. It's nothing more than a gigantic hissy fit because the left has no power.

 

two words, Eric Holder

 

So, seriously, so what? Did other elected and yet to be sworn in presidents have contact with foreign officials, or their staff have contact with said officials prior to being sworn in? Sure. The difference is the media and democrats are conflating two separate things that don't add up to their hyperventilating hissy fit.
The sad truth is that interference in our election doesn't manage to cover the loss of ms Clinton, who decidedly f'ed herself up all by herself. She clearly didn't need help.

 

So what you are saying is that Nancy Pelosi should immediately resign for her lying in falsely denying she met with the Russian ambassador, correct?

 

Yet I bet you voted for Hillary who lied in front of congress. Sessions did not lie. How about the last AG who met with Slick Willy while his wife was under FBI investigation or Eric Holder who received a contempt of congress resolution ?

There is no evidence of any collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians to throw the elections. It seems this ambassador is a friend of the Dems

 

You have judge the facts? You say nothing about the facts. You did not challenge any of the facts. Typical Trump fan, all talk and no substance. Consider these facts while you are at it.

The CNN/ORC poll found that 65 percent of respondents believe an "independent special prosecutor should be appointed." Democratic leaders including Senate Minority Leader Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., have called for such an inquiry. Nearly a third of respondents, 32 percent, said "Congress is capable of handling," while 3 percent expressed no opinion
But a majority of Republicans say Congress can handle the matter, given the choice between the two options.

This poll suggest three things.

1. Right off the bat, Trump admirers will claim it is a liberal poll, thus fake news and shouldn't be believed. Being a Trump fan means never believing anything you hear in the news media because their hero says the media is dishonest, an enemy of the people, and it is all fake news. Can you imagine going through life and not being able to believe anything you hear?

2. The Republican Congress will continue to support Trump ... for now, but, after this weekend, that has to be increasingly difficult.

3. It does not matter what Trump does, what ludicrous tweets he sends, what ludicrous statements he makes, his diehard base, roughly 35 to 40% of Americans will stick by him. His behavior is much like their own, erratic, sometimes less than truthful, lacking intelligence and due diligence, and narcissistic. They love him for it.

 

Are you arguing that two (three) wrongs make a right? If Holder was completely incompetent, and he was, so was Lynch, then it is okay for Sessions to be incompetent? Is that what you are saying?

 

The issue is not mere contact between American and Russian officials. The issue is collusion between Trump's team and the Russians as they interfered in our election.
Review my comments. I have provided them for your convenience.

Did Attorney General Jeff Sessions break any laws? No, but possibly. Was Sessions guilty of a misleading statement to Congress? Yes. Was Sessions guilty of bad judgment? Yes. Did Sessions lack the capacity to give a completely accurate answer to the Senate confirmation hearing? Yes. For those reasons Sessions should resign because they create an atmosphere of doubt as to Sessions' ability and trustworthiness.

Here is what happened. On Feb. 28, 2016, Sessions became the first Senator to endorse Donald Trump. On March 3, Trump announced that Sessions will lead his national security advisory committee. During the week of July 18, Sergey I. Kislyak, the Russian ambassador, was among a small group of diplomats who chatted with Sessions after an event during the Republican National Convention.

On July 22, WikiLeaks posted 20,000 emails sent or received by D.N.C. officials. On July 27, during a news conference, Trump asked, “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing” in an apparent reference to Hillary Clinton’s deleted emails.

On, Sept. 8, Sessions met privately with Kislyak in his Senate office. In early December, U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that Russia was behind the D.N.C. hacking and that it took the action in favor of Mr. Trump. Dec. 29, Obama announces sanctions against Russia for trying to influence the election. Flynn discussed sanctions with Kislyak in a phone call, according to officials who saw a transcript of the wiretapped conversation. On Dec. 30, uncharacteristically, Putin did not retaliate against the sanctions giving rise to the allegation that a deal was consummated.

On Jan. 10, 2017, at the confirmation hearing for attorney general, Senator Al Franken, a Democrat, asked Sessions what he would do if “there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign.” Sessions replied: “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign, and I didn’t have — did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it.”

In January President Trump was given a comprehensive summary of the contents of Flynn’s phone calls with the Russian ambassador, a source told Fox News. Feb. 13, Flynn resigned.

On March 1, Sessions says in a statement, “I never met with any Russian officials to discuss issues of the campaign. I have no idea what this allegation is about. It is false.”

On March 2, Sessions admits, prior to endorsing Trump and becoming a member of his election campaign, he has never met the Russian ambassador. Conclusion, the only time he met with the ambassador was during his involvement with the Trump election campaign.

March 2, Sessions announced he is recusing himself from any investigations related to the Trump campaign.

Consequently, while it is unclear whether or not Sessions broke any laws, that possibility remains. However, clearly Sessions is guilty of improprieties and an unwillingness to be forthcoming. For these reasons he should resign. His trust with the American people has been compromised.

 

Actually, I wish she would, but that is not the point. Also, Schumer and McCaskill met Russians as well (Putin), but that is not the point, either. Pelosi, Schumer, and McCaskill were not in a Congressional confirmation hearing under oath. Sessions was.

Also, the main issue is, did the Trump team coordinate activities with the Russians when the latter was interfering in our election? I find it hard to believe that Pelosi, Schumer, and McCaskill acted in concert with the Russians to defeat Clinton. What do you think?

 

That is exactly my point. If there is nothing to hide, what are they hiding?

One thing Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell keep saying over and over again is that there is no evidence. Ryan, "We have seen no evidence from any of these ongoing investigations that anybody in the Trump campaign or the Trump team was involved in any of this."

Well, that is true, but why is it true? The FBI has not disclosed anything regarding their investigation into this matter. The Senate and House investigating committees have not disclosed anything with regard to this matter. Nunes has said there is no evidence that Trump campaign staff discussed the election with the Russians, disregarding the rather important fact that his investigating committee is tasked with finding that evidence if it exists. It is like a cop saying there is no evidence before he investigates to see if there is evidence. Kinda dumb, huh?

Obviously, we know the Republican-led investigating committees are politicized. Now we know, as a result of Loretta Lynch's indiscretions, that the justice department which runs the FBI is politicized, and it can be argued that Director James Comey had a direct hand in Trump's election.

That is where the evidence is and the Republican committees and FBI are not forthcoming. So much for lack of evidence. The evidence is controlled by Trump's political party. How convenient. The Republicans have a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

You asked for proof. You are getting proof. Always be careful what you wish for.

The Republicans keep saying there is no evidence the Russian hacking influenced the election. They say they are not aware of anyone changing their vote because of the leaks. How ridiculous is that, and who said anything about changing votes? The issue is influencing the vote, not changing it.

The Wikileaks campaign began in July. For four straight months, every single day, and right up to election day the voting public was bombarded by anti-Clinton disclosures, many quite damaging. Trump, himself, even encouraged the Russians. “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Mr. Trump said during a news conference. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

It is inconceivable that all this did not have an effect on the election.

As organized as Trump claims he is, it is perfectly conceivable that the Russian hacking campaign was in coordination with the Trump election committee.

All this brings up some important facts. Sessions himself admitted that the only time he has met with Kislyak was during the election season, never before July. Of the 26 members of the 2016 Armed Services Committee who met with Russian envoy Kislyak in 2016, Sessions was the only one.

Two more members of the Trump campaign’s national security officials also spoke with Kislyak in July, J.D. Gordon and Carter Page. Paul Manafort, the former Donald Trump campaign manager resigned over his lobbying work in Ukraine for the pro-Russian government. Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner met with Russia's ambassador to the U.S. in December.

Throughout the election campaign and beyond, Trump has lavished praises on the Russian leader. "If he says great things about me, I'm going to say great things about him." "I've already said he is very much of a leader. The man has very strong control over his country."

On the very same day that Sessions met with Kislyak, Sept. 8th, Trump appeared on the Russian propaganda network, RT.

During the four-month period in which Russia was actively interfering in our election for Trump's benefit, according to our 17 intelligence agencies, are we to believe this interaction between Trump's staff and Trump himself was innocent talk about future relationships? That is a bit too much. to swallow.

 

CNN poll? LOL. Whatever.