|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 03 2017 01:27 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 01:21 Danglars wrote:On March 03 2017 01:09 KwarK wrote:SEN. PATRICK J. LEAHY:
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? SESSIONS:
No. *turns out that Sessions met with Sergey Kislyak. Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador, is considered by US intelligence to be one of Russia's top spies and spy-recruiters in Washington, according to current and former senior US government officials.* (CNN) I'm really not sure where the ambiguity in his language was. The problem one was the surrogate question from Franken, not quoted. "About the 2016 election" is the operative word here. Do you need help finding the Franken question/answer? Right, so if he gets a good lawyer he might be able to avoid a technical Perjury. And yet we have Trump associate number 4? 5? I've lost count, who had meetings with Russian officials under questionable circumstances during the election. Even if you do not believe that anything happened and that Trump's cabinet is not associated in any form with Russia, at this point you have to understand why questions are being asked? Why people want an investigation? And its not just Democrats looking to score points. Proud Republicans in this thread are asking questions aswell.
Why do you think I have problems with asking questions? I just finished saying I expect Sessions will recuse himself from the investigation. You must have me confused with someone.
|
On March 03 2017 01:47 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 01:41 Nebuchad wrote:On March 03 2017 01:38 LegalLord wrote:On March 03 2017 01:34 Mohdoo wrote:On March 03 2017 01:31 LegalLord wrote:
So are the next four years set to be a never-ending game of, "Who talked to Russia and should be fired for it?" The trajectory of this presidency suggests that that is the case. You don't think you're being a little disingenuous by saying its as simple as speaking? Well unless you think there's a huge cabal of Russian spies in the US government that only came to light because of Trump, I would say that McCarthyism is more likely than genuine concern. What's the incentive to lie about it until you can't deny it, though? Probably to avoid this situation earlier during confirmation.
Well that's certainly a more encouraging option.
It's not that they committed perjury by not understanding the implications of their meetings, it's that they knew the meetings would be viewed negatively, went through with them anyway, and tried to cover them up.
|
On March 03 2017 01:29 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 01:22 Danglars wrote:On March 03 2017 01:15 farvacola wrote:
lol, Danglars has resorted to attempting to use Claire McCaskill as cover, Sessions must really be done for. Forget the claim that he couldn't have been in contact as part of his Senatorial position so soon? Get your issues straight and we might have a discussion, if indeed you're interested in having one. Her meeting with a group of Senators is very different from a one on one meeting during the height of Russian hacking of a US election when you're on Trump's team and slated to be in his administration. But don't worry, this is only an isolated incident with team Trump.
The claim was nobody ever did it on the committee. I'm well aware that everything Russia is guilty before proven innocent, so I can't change your personal takeaways.
|
On March 03 2017 01:47 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 01:41 Nebuchad wrote:On March 03 2017 01:38 LegalLord wrote:On March 03 2017 01:34 Mohdoo wrote:On March 03 2017 01:31 LegalLord wrote:
So are the next four years set to be a never-ending game of, "Who talked to Russia and should be fired for it?" The trajectory of this presidency suggests that that is the case. You don't think you're being a little disingenuous by saying its as simple as speaking? Well unless you think there's a huge cabal of Russian spies in the US government that only came to light because of Trump, I would say that McCarthyism is more likely than genuine concern. What's the incentive to lie about it until you can't deny it, though? Probably to avoid this situation earlier during confirmation.
You can go for the strategy that the meetings don't matter and just disclose them. If you first hide them as much as possible and then go "No actually they don't matter", that doesn't sound credible at all.
|
On March 03 2017 01:51 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 01:43 Plansix wrote:
If talking to Bill for 30 minutes at an airport is cause for recusal, this qualifies.
This isn’t a witch hunt, this is the Republicans being held to the same standard they set over the last 6 years.
6++++ years you mean?
You only need the last 6 years of GOP controlled congress justify this. The last two might be sufficient. No need to dive farther back in history when its was all in the last +2 years.
|
On March 03 2017 01:56 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 01:29 Doodsmack wrote:On March 03 2017 01:22 Danglars wrote:On March 03 2017 01:15 farvacola wrote:
lol, Danglars has resorted to attempting to use Claire McCaskill as cover, Sessions must really be done for. Forget the claim that he couldn't have been in contact as part of his Senatorial position so soon? Get your issues straight and we might have a discussion, if indeed you're interested in having one. Her meeting with a group of Senators is very different from a one on one meeting during the height of Russian hacking of a US election when you're on Trump's team and slated to be in his administration. But don't worry, this is only an isolated incident with team Trump. The claim was nobody ever did it on the committee. I'm well aware that everything Russia is guilty before proven innocent, so I can't change your personal takeaways.
Danglars, so it doesn't look bad that we currently have Russia under sanction, there were multiple meetings prior to election with Russian officials, and everyone's current stance that is in the current Executive branch towards Russia is like giving sympathy of how great Mother Russia is?
I mean, it's only getting worse for the executive branch.
|
On March 03 2017 02:01 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 01:56 Danglars wrote:On March 03 2017 01:29 Doodsmack wrote:On March 03 2017 01:22 Danglars wrote:On March 03 2017 01:15 farvacola wrote:
lol, Danglars has resorted to attempting to use Claire McCaskill as cover, Sessions must really be done for. Forget the claim that he couldn't have been in contact as part of his Senatorial position so soon? Get your issues straight and we might have a discussion, if indeed you're interested in having one. Her meeting with a group of Senators is very different from a one on one meeting during the height of Russian hacking of a US election when you're on Trump's team and slated to be in his administration. But don't worry, this is only an isolated incident with team Trump. The claim was nobody ever did it on the committee. I'm well aware that everything Russia is guilty before proven innocent, so I can't change your personal takeaways. Danglars, so it doesn't look bad that we currently have Russia under sanction, there were multiple meetings prior to election with Russian officials, and everyone's current stance that is in the current Executive branch towards Russia is like giving sympathy of how great Mother Russia is? I mean, it's only getting worse for the executive branch.
Two meetings, one of which was at a hosted event for ambassadors. It really sounds like you're against talking to people currently under sanction. Or not knowing what business a senator/member of armed services committee could have with the Russian ambassador is a story and not the beginning of an investigation. Trump has a softer approach to Russia, and as a hawk, I don't like how glowingly he's talked to Putin. That doesn't mean every senator coordinating with his campaign must resign his office and committees and stay away from ambassadors. It's an impossible standard and I expect you know it. The only thing at issue here is Sessions' response to the surrogate question.
|
|
|
United States44190 Posts
On March 03 2017 02:12 Danglars wrote:
It really sounds like you're against talking to people currently under sanction.
Certainly you should be against people high up in a political campaign who are in a position to change the sanctions if they win talking privately to people high up in the sanctioned state who are in a position to help the political campaign win. Especially when the result is that the help was given by the sanctioned state to the political campaign and the political campaign softened their stance immediately after winning.
I mean this kind of shit is right there with guilty defendants not giving gifts to members of the jury in terms of obvious problems with a system. And while it's hypothetically possible that a defendant could make a substantial cash gift to a jury member for reasons other than to influence the result and while it's possible that jury member was always planning to be lenient I don't think it's absurd to say that you're against it universally, even if there is a possibility for it not being what it obviously looks like.
I see this Sessions shit as pretty much the same. At a certain point it doesn't even matter what it was that was said. The Trump campaign privately met with Russian intelligence, received significant help from Russian intelligence and was lenient towards Russian interests at the expense of American geopolitical interests. Sure, they may have just discussed the weather. But they shouldn't have done it.
|
They might be overplaying their hand. But I doubt it. Sessions resigning in a moon shot. But he is so unpopular with the DNC's base that there is no reason not to shoot the moon.
|
On March 03 2017 01:43 Plansix wrote:
If talking to Bill for 30 minutes at an airport is cause for recusal, this qualifies.
Pretty much.
That said, contrasting this with the Clinton e-mail investigation is revealing a lot of hypocrisy on both sides. It would be wrong to say it's just the Republicans who are guilty of it this time around. Nonetheless, it's a bad look for Sessions to have not already recused himself by the time this got out, particularly given the parallel's to Lynch.
On March 03 2017 02:37 KwarK wrote:
I see this Sessions shit as pretty much the same. At a certain point it doesn't even matter what it was that was said. The Trump campaign privately met with Russian intelligence, received significant help from Russian intelligence and was lenient towards Russian interests at the expense of American geopolitical interests. Sure, they may have just discussed the weather. But they shouldn't have done it.
At the bare minimum, Sessions should have said or done something the moment it became apparent that an investigation of some form was going to materialize out of Flynn's debacle. Waiting for people to find out for themselves that you had that conversation rather than recusing yourself up-front because you know you're going to have to anyway is not a good look.
|
One might say it is about as smart as not disclosing a private email server when you are under investigation on another matter. Even if you did nothing criminal, it makes you look shady as fuck.
|
Regardless of what actually turns out of this, Sessions will have a pall cast on him throughout his stint as AG, reducing the likelihood that he'll be able to get away with radically stupid shit like re-ramping up the war on drugs.
|
On March 03 2017 01:27 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 01:21 Danglars wrote:On March 03 2017 01:09 KwarK wrote:SEN. PATRICK J. LEAHY:
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? SESSIONS:
No. *turns out that Sessions met with Sergey Kislyak. Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador, is considered by US intelligence to be one of Russia's top spies and spy-recruiters in Washington, according to current and former senior US government officials.* (CNN) I'm really not sure where the ambiguity in his language was. The problem one was the surrogate question from Franken, not quoted. "About the 2016 election" is the operative word here. Do you need help finding the Franken question/answer? Proud Republicans in this thread are asking questions as well.
Like me. I voted for Trump. But I find the sheer number of people with ties to Russian intelligence to be frightening. Carter Page and Paul Manafort both got fired during the campaign when their ties got too obvious. Flynn gets canned 1 1/2 months into the administration due to lying to Pence about his dealings with Russian intelligence, but he was on the Kremlin's payroll for a long time (I'm talking 1 or 2 years) prior. Now Sessions is revealed to have also had contact with Russian intelligence, because that is exactly what Ambassador Kislyak is. This looks really bad and we're not even 2 months into the admin yet. NSA is witholding info from Trump b/c they don't trust him with it, and rightfully so. We need an independent special prosecutor, not a congressional committee mired in individual members' politics, to get to the bottom of this.
For the record, I detest both Clinton and Obama as well. I am really not a fan of how Democrats are now screaming their heads off about how evil Russia is when they are the ones who let it get to this point!! Anyone remember the 2012 debates, when Romney called Russia one of the greatest threats to America in the world and Obama laughed in his face over it? Romney looks better with each passing day.
EDIT: more on Flynn, he got paid 40k to attend precisely one dinner with Putin. That dinner was hosted by RT aka Russian state controlled propaganda
|
The entire post-election period was a gigantic Russia hunt on the part of Democrats. Every relevant nominee was grilled hard on relations with Russia, and they were looking for any reason whatsoever to try to tie Trump and his staff to Russia. Flynn was an easy target - he wasn't vetted by Congress, he was clearly incompetent, and he did do something obviously not proper for his position. Getting rid of him was doable. But now I see that the Democrats want to go after the next most disliked person that they can get their hands on: Sessions. Someone they very clearly disliked. Maybe they would go after DeVos but it's not easy to do that on Russia matters.
Looking at the WaPo above, the case against Sessions looks quite mediocre. It's looking like a political game of "blame the Russia" which is not far from McCarthying.
|
On March 03 2017 02:50 LegalLord wrote:
The entire post-election period was a gigantic Russia hunt on the part of Democrats. Every relevant nominee was grilled hard on relations with Russia, and they were looking for any reason whatsoever to try to tie Trump and his staff to Russia. Flynn was an easy target - he wasn't vetted by Congress, he was clearly incompetent, and he did do something obviously not proper for his position. Getting rid of him was doable. But now I see that the Democrats want to go after the next most disliked person that they can get their hands on: Sessions. Someone they very clearly disliked. Maybe they would go after DeVos but it's not easy to do that on Russia matters.
Looking at the WaPo above, the case against Sessions looks quite mediocre. It's looking like a political game of "blame the Russia" which is not far from McCarthying.
Or maybe it's Ben Ghazi'ing. Or does that strike too close to home?
I would argue that it is neither so far. There is so far a load of yelling, and without some kind of investigation it will stay at that. I will maintain my position of the last few weeks: an independent investigation should be installed to investigate the ties of the administration to Russia.
|
On March 03 2017 02:50 LegalLord wrote:
The entire post-election period was a gigantic Russia hunt on the part of Democrats. Every relevant nominee was grilled hard on relations with Russia, and they were looking for any reason whatsoever to try to tie Trump and his staff to Russia. Flynn was an easy target - he wasn't vetted by Congress, he was clearly incompetent, and he did do something obviously not proper for his position. Getting rid of him was doable. But now I see that the Democrats want to go after the next most disliked person that they can get their hands on: Sessions. Someone they very clearly disliked. Maybe they would go after DeVos but it's not easy to do that on Russia matters.
Looking at the WaPo above, the case against Sessions looks quite mediocre. It's looking like a political game of "blame the Russia" which is not far from McCarthying.
For anyone who would like more insight into LL's views on Russia, please go read pages 688 and 689 of Europe QA megathread. It is profoundly disgusting.
|
Sesssion got caught pulling the same shit that Clinton did and is going to get burned for it, not being 100% forthcoming with Congress. Right or wrong, it doesn't matter. No one get the benefit of the doubt any more. If you fucked up, fess up.
This really isn't complex. The Republicans used every tool they had to attack Obama and Clinton. The Benghazi investigation lasted longer than the 9/11 commission and water gate investigation, and turned up very little actionable evidence. The Democrats just tried to ride it out under the foolish assumption that the voters would punish the GOP for aggressively using the tools to attack their political opponents. They got burned by that plan, so they are fighting fire with fire. Likely they always should have.
If you don't like witch hunts, don't have one of your own and then expect people not to answer in kind.
|
On March 03 2017 02:50 LegalLord wrote:
The entire post-election period was a gigantic Russia hunt on the part of Democrats. Every relevant nominee was grilled hard on relations with Russia, and they were looking for any reason whatsoever to try to tie Trump and his staff to Russia. Flynn was an easy target - he wasn't vetted by Congress, he was clearly incompetent, and he did do something obviously not proper for his position. Getting rid of him was doable. But now I see that the Democrats want to go after the next most disliked person that they can get their hands on: Sessions. Someone they very clearly disliked. Maybe they would go after DeVos but it's not easy to do that on Russia matters.
Looking at the WaPo above, the case against Sessions looks quite mediocre. It's looking like a political game of "blame the Russia" which is not far from McCarthying.
That new time travel and mind control tech the Democrats have is really something. Being able to go back in time and control Trump's associates to get them to have conspicuous talks with Russian officials really is a work of art.
|
It's nice to see someone who admittedly voted for Trump indicate that they too recognize LL's shilling, as some here are all too willing to let him add his RT 2-cents to their crusade against "the regressive left."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
