For the good of the country, Sessions should resign

Resign WHY????? Because of made to order "accusations" and assumptions being hurled by the likes of Al Fraken & other lefties? There's been zero evidence presented that Sessions did anything unethical or illegal! It's all one big distraction & 99% of the crap being spewed by the lefties is mindless BS!

 

The answers to all your questions are no. Franken was asking Sessions about a 100% made up "dossier" and in the context of that, Sessions was 100% honest and not misleading in the least; as such he showed no bad judgement. In fact his judgement was good and very civil in light of the absurd and inane questioning from the Comedian from Minn.

I'm curious: did you clamor for Lynch's resignation for the highly inappropriate secret meeting with the husband of the Democrat candidate for the president one week before her Director of the FBI was to report on his investigation of Hillary's violation of the Espionage Act? Or when Holder was found in contempt of congress for refusing to testify? I bet not.

Are you bothered with Obama's inappropriate (if not illegal) influence in the campaign by getting wiretaps authorized to record Trump (FISA did not approve the wiretap request on Trump himself) and Trump's high advisors? Do you think it OK for a president to utilize his (our) justice and intelligence departments to gather dirt on a presidential candidate? And leak that confidential and secret dirt to the press? Just curious.

 

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.

 

Yes, it is, and I blame the media for not being more forthcoming. 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.

Why can't the so-called liberal media make all this more clear to the general public? Why is the media so subservient to the Trump talking points?

 

There is much more to this than Sessions' answer. See posts #53 and 54. You are trying to make a complicated situation simple.

 

That's possible. He'll be fired. Naw, I don't know that, but Trump, one way or the other, has to put this behind him. Yesterday, the same day Sessions recused himself, Trump went aboard the USS Gerald Ford, our newest aircraft carrier. It was supposed to be a gala event. Trump got upstaged. It barely made a blip on the media. No one paid attention to his speech. All they wanted to know was his reaction to the Sessions issue.

Yeah, he has to try to make this all go away. But it is complicated. See posts 53 and 54.

 

Good point. And whether or not one is concerned that Putin got his man. He didn't waste all that time and effort for nothing.

 

It won't.

 

Again, the question has to be asked. If there is nothing to hide, what are they hiding? There is a heck of a lot of smoke. Check out posts 53 and 54.

 

"Sore Loser Democrats are still trying to re-litigate the last election ..." Amidst all the scandals involving the Trump administration, this is your only argument. It is a pretty tired argument. This has nothing to do with the Democrats. I haven't even mentioned any Democrats. It has everything to do with Sessions' and Trump's actions and words.

 

"All These Scandals"? This is third pass of (*)(*)(*)(*)-gate, a Leftwing farce, not a rightwing scandal.



- - - Updated - - -

"All These Scandals"? This is third pass of (*)(*)(*)(*)-gate, a Leftwing farce, not a rightwing scandal.

 

Trump brings this onto himself. See posts 53 and 54. You mentioned Trump's choices for the cabinet. There again, Trump is responsible for the delays.

He chose a woman for education who never attended public school never taught or administered a public school, whose children never attended public school. Public schools account for 90.3% of students in primary and secondary schools.

He chose a man for energy who wanted to abolish the energy department.

He chose a bankers to regulate bankers.

He chose an EPA head who has sued the EPA 14 times.

I could go on, but you get my point.

 

Were the disclosures lies?

 

NO WAY should he resign...these are all conspiracy theories woven by Democrats because they are such babies! It is so obvious to anyone with even just half a brain... the Awan Brothers are being investigated for hacking the computers of Democrats they worked for who were on intel committees. The survivors of the Yemen mission said that the terrorists seemed to know they were coming and were prepared. Awan Brothers could have easily gotten info from the intel committee members they worked for. These Brothers had clearance.

 

It's not complicated once we remove the lies. Sessions did not meet with Russians to discuss interference with the election. Period.

 

No I do not think they do.. or ever will. There will always be a relatively small portion of the USA that will always vote against their own best interests and that prefers an authoritarian daddy figure who they feel emotionally drawn to despite the fact that he is a swindler and not even remotely qualified for the position.

 

No one has even come close proving "in bed" with the Russians.

It's all wild, paranoid speculation by people who Trump has driven to the psychological edge.

 

Don't hold your breath. We said the same thing about Lynch meeting with Bill Clinton while Hillary and the Clinton foundation was under investigation.

- - - Updated - - -

Obama can't run again.

 

Democrats have definitely created a meme of Teh Rushunz for some reason. I guess the Xanax is not strong enough to soothe the butthurt and they are tired of listening to Adele in the dark whilst gently sobbing in their chamomile tea.

 

This brings up another sore point with me and thinking how things could be different. First off, I have always said any president should have whom he wants surrounding him, his cabinet and agency heads. I said this for Obama, Bush etc. Trump should be no different. Now having said that, what is different is the number of votes needed for conformation.

Thanks to Senator Harry Reid using the nuclear option, setting the precedence and changing the long held traditions of the senate, instead of need 60 votes for conformation, a simple majority of 51 will suffice. Why is that important? I think if Trump knew he had to get at least 8 Democrats to sign off on all his nominations, he might and I use the word might, have nominated someone different. But that isn't the case now. Instead of a 60 vote threshold, it is now 51. I said when Reid did this that it was a huge mistake and every and all Obama supporters jumped on me like a ton of bricks. Republicans did this, did that, stopped and slowed Obama's nominations using the filibuster. All true for the most part. I pointed out that the Democrats wouldn't always hold the senate and the White House. That sooner or later you would end up with a Republican president and a GOP senate. That latter became sooner. Short term political gain followed by a long term disaster for this nation. Thank you Senator Reid.

Do you think Trump would have nominated everyone that he has if he knew and Mitch McConnell knew that each and every nominee would need 60 votes instead of 51? But does it really matter? Everyone Trump nominates is there to carry out his policies, just like everyone Obama nominated. Does the person in that office, his name, really matter when the president will be dictating what he wants or doesn't want from that office?

 

It is time to review the evidence. Then I would like your comment of the evidence.

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. A self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

And this.

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.


Comments directly related to the evidence, please, not bland generalities.

 

What do the Democrats have to do with this? I'm not a Democrat, and I have not mentioned any Democrats. What I have done is compile a good deal of evidence of Republican culpability which you have completely ignored. See posts 71 and 72 and comment specifically on the evidence. Up to now your comments are just meaningless talk.

 

There is a lot more to this than Franken's question and Sessions' answer. See posts 71 and 72 for a review then comment directly to the evidence.

 

How do you know that? You can't, but the evidence, which you have completely ignored, is very compelling that there is duplicity on the part of Trump's staff. Moreover, Trump and his staff have a pattern of lying. Would you like me to share with you the top 100 lies of his administration?

What does Pelosi have to do with all of this? Nothing. You are avoiding the evidence.