Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Media Hysteria: Tom Friedman Invokes 9/11, Pearl Harbor over Sessions/Russia

Media Hysteria: Tom Friedman Invokes 9/11, Pearl Harbor over Sessions/Russia

“one of the most shameful things I have seen in almost 30 years” in DC

Overnight a mass media hysteria developed over Jeff Session’s answer to questions regarding contacts with Russians.

As detailed in this NBC News report and elsewhere, Sessions was responding to questions regarding contacts in his role as a Trump surrogate:

Attorney General Jeff Sessions denied meeting with Russian officials during the course of the presidential election to discuss the Trump campaign, he told NBC News in exclusive remarks early Thursday.

“I have not met with any Russians at any time to discuss any political campaign,” he said, “and those remarks are unbelievable to me and are false. And I don’t have anything else to say about that.” …

Sessions’ spokeswoman confirmed Wednesday night that he had met with the Russian ambassador to the U.S. before the presidential election last year in his capacity as a then-senator — raising questions about whether he misled fellow senators during his attorney general confirmation hearing in January.

[Spokeswoman] Flores said “there was absolutely nothing misleading about his answer” because Sessions was asked about “communications between Russia and the Trump campaign” and not about meetings he took as a senator with the Armed Services Committee.

Note that during 2016, Sen. Sessions met with more than 25 foreign ambassadors. Nonetheless, this is the media firestorm of the week.

Tom Friedman’s frothing hyperventilation on CNN this morning epitomizes the Dem/MSM hysteria:

  • “A lot of evidence” that Jeff Sessions “perjured himself.”
  • The failure of more Republicans to be up in arms about the matter “one of the most shameful things I have seen in almost 30 years being in Washington, DC.”
  • In a nifty bit of saying something by claiming not to say it, in describing the seriousness of the matter, Friedman mentions 9/11 and Pearl Harbor while claiming not to compare them, at least in terms of “lives lost.”

THOMAS FRIEDMAN: I think those who have suggested that Jeff Sessions perjured himself in his testimony have a lot of evidence for that.

. . .

ALISYN CAMEROTA: Why, do you think, aren’t more Republicans up in arms about this?

FRIEDMAN: Ali, I think it is one of the most shameful things I’ve seen in almost 30 years being in Washington, DC.

. . .

On 9/11, we lost 3,000 of our brothers and sisters. At Pearl Harbor, we lost thousands of people. These were huge events. I don’t compare it in terms of lives lost. But in terms of import, this was a direct assault on the very thing that makes us unique as a nation: the fact that we rotate power legally, freely, okay, and we don’t challenge that.

And the fact that the Russians attacked this, that for less than the price of a MiG-29, for less than the price of a MiG-29, Vladimir Putin intervened in our election and helped to create, helped to elect a chaos candidate, which is exactly what Putin wants, because he is out to destroy the West. The fact that the Republican party is sitting there on its hands, not responding to this, looking the other way, and looking for excuses for it, is one of the most shameful national security cases I have ever seen in Washington, DC.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

I don’t care much about the past; right now Thomas Friedman is a lying POS.

    MarkSmith in reply to Exiliado. | March 2, 2017 at 2:13 pm

    Friedman is just a Con-Artist. His World is Flat is one lousy book that is just a promotion of out sourcing and Globalization. Everything he is about is opposite of making America Great. It is his vision and Trump represent everyting he is not. Sadly corporate idiots love this guy.

    This guy needs a kick in the ……..

You want improper contacts with Russian authorities? How about Obama telling the Russian president during his campaign for reelection: “I’ll have more flexibility after I am reelected.”

The Dims are all about projection.

    Paul in reply to Wisewerds. | March 2, 2017 at 10:36 am

    Or the Clintons taking in tens of millions of dollars from Russian firms that eventually got clearance to acquire large uranium assets in the US and Canada, all while she was SoS. He department had to approve those (US) deals and she lined her pockets in the process.

      Milhouse in reply to Paul. | March 2, 2017 at 2:34 pm

      Sorry, that is a string of lies.

      This is all about a Russian company buying 51% of a Canadian company that owns some uranium mines in the US.

      1. She never got one penny from any Russian firm involved in that deal. The only donation she got from anyone involved was $250,000 from a Canadian businessman who was chairman of the company that the Russians wanted to buy. He says his donation had nothing to do with this deal, which makes sense because he also gave larger amounts in the several years before and after, and also because…

      2. Her department did not have to approve the deal. The only person who could allow or block it was the President. The State Department’s only involvement was that it has one vote out of nine on an committee that advises president on such deals. The president can accept or reject the advice.

      3. The State Dept representative on that committee has said (and there’s no reason to doubt his word) that in all his time on the committee Clinton never spoke a word to him about it. Not about this deal or any other. She may not even have been aware that the committee existed or that he was on it.

        inspectorudy in reply to Milhouse. | March 2, 2017 at 9:40 pm

        “As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
        And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.”

        Stick that up your wimpy little a$$ milhouse!

          Milhouse in reply to inspectorudy. | March 3, 2017 at 5:46 pm

          The chairman (who is Canadian, not Russian, he was selling to the Russians) donated $250K during the relevant period, not $2.35M. His other donations before and after obviously have no connection to the deal, and show that this donation is very unlikely to have had any connection to the deal either. There were no other donations from anyone involved in the company during the relevant period.

          More importantly, though, there was no reason for anyone to give her anything to get this deal through, because she had no power to permit or forbid it. The claim that she had such power, which is the very basis of the allegation, is a f***ing lie. So stick that up your bum, Mr Inspector Sir.

    MattMusson in reply to Wisewerds. | March 2, 2017 at 11:07 am

    Nothing about this was improper. Sessions was clearly asked if he met with any Russians ‘with respect to the campaign’. This in NO WAY refers to the 25+ times he met with Russians with respect to his job on the Armed Services Review Committee.

    This is a Media Generated Hit. Nothing more.

Clearly this is right up there with abandoning Americans in Benghazi to die…and then deliberately lying to the American people to cover that up.

Liberals eh…lucky they have their priorities right.

Mailman

I dislike and usually avoid labeling, but I’m willing in this instance to make an exception: Friedman is a pathetic SOS.

They are seeing Russians everywhere? When are they considered delusional about the Russians? What is wrong with these people?

    Close The Fed in reply to scfanjl. | March 2, 2017 at 11:44 am

    Dear SCFanjl:

    You’re right. The GOP should start asking when these people will be committed for an examination and medication.

    Mock them, shut them up.

Why is it that Democrats have such a problem with people that tell the truth?

    MarkJ in reply to MJN1957. | March 3, 2017 at 12:07 am

    The reason why Democrats have such a problem with other people telling the truth is because they spend so much time lying to each other that they can’t believe nobody else does it as well.

maybe if the democrats asked the right question they might have had but they didn’t. and leaky leahy isn’t one to throw stones

Who knows body language? Both CNN people are leaning (heads and body) while they are listening to this guy. I also noticed that they did not interrupt him at all.

If they were interviewing a R, I’m sure they would not have let that person to finish a phrase, let alone a complete sentence.

Common Sense | March 2, 2017 at 11:04 am

The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming.
This is just one more sling the mud and hope some sticks!

This attack was planed and carried out by the departing Obama administration.

You can smell desperation from the left.
Their plan: Deny, Dispute, Destroy!

I sincerely hope Sessions just laughs at them and moves on, cause this is not going to stop, no way, they got Flynn with this hogwash,…

Can’t wait to hear McCain and miss Lindsey’s call for a special prosecutor

    MarkSmith in reply to gonzotx. | March 2, 2017 at 2:21 pm

    They all ready are. They are the problem and need to go. What RINOS. What they do not realize is the damage that they are doing. Maybe this is a great way to call the game out in the open so you know where to focus.

legalizehazing | March 2, 2017 at 11:28 am

What do they expect to get form this? The facts are not in their favor

There is no point in meeting a single solitary demand of the Democrats. Nothing will every satisfy them.. Capitulation is only an invitation for more demands.

    Close The Fed in reply to sequester. | March 2, 2017 at 11:43 am

    Re Sequester:

    Exactly.

    practicalconservative in reply to sequester. | March 2, 2017 at 11:43 am

    Democrats are now the party of the perpetually aggrieved. High Dudgeon is their currency.

    There is little point in making a single concession to people who wish you nothing but harm. People who offer you absolutely no quarter. The only choice is to fight on.

    counsel in reply to sequester. | March 2, 2017 at 11:58 am

    Perjury — isn’t that what happened in the Hillary email scandal? Yet no calls by the Democrats for a special prosecutor. I must also have missed the calls for a special prosecutor in the Eric Holder contempt of Congress case, the Fast and Furious case, the Benghazi Affair, the IRS targeting of conservatives. I could go on.

    Perjury is a specific intent crime. The prosecution must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the person did not believe what he attested to was true. Mere confusion or mistake does not constitute perjury.

““one of the most shameful things I have seen in almost 30 years” in DC”

He must not use a mirror. 😉

Thank you Mark Finkelstein for putting a report out there that gives us some context on this. Of course Senators meet with envoys from foreign countries. CNN is faking out America [again] with distorted content contrived for — and coordinated with — the Left’s “truther” fantasy on how Russia tricked America into not electing Hillary. No doubt every Senator who voted against Sessions for AG will claim to be shocked SHOCKED that as a Senator, Sessions had the audacity to meet with foreign envoys — including ones from Russia.

    Mark Finkelstein in reply to Mark30339. | March 2, 2017 at 12:31 pm

    You’re very welcome: we Marks gotta stick together 🙂

    Don’t forget all those overseas trips that Congress takes to check out what’s happening. I’m sure I’ve seen a picture or two of Ds meeting with leaders.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | March 2, 2017 at 12:31 pm

On Tuesday, Trump gave a speech that one poll says 78% viewed positively. Now the Democrat Media Complex are pushing the idea his presidency is illegitimate due to Russian interference in the election.

Raise your hand if you believe in coincidences.

BTW, I wonder who was president when this alleged interference happened and what he did about it.

buckeyeminuteman | March 2, 2017 at 12:49 pm

This Democratic witch hunt will not end until they get Trump himself out of office.

Take this with a grain of salt since it is from Yahoo …

“Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, was more combative, denouncing what she described as the U.S. “media vandalism.”

“Let me open a military secret for you: It’s part of the diplomatic job to have contacts in the country they are posted to,” she said sarcastically. “It’s their obligation to meet with officials and members of the political establishment.”

Zakharova also drew a literary allusion to George Orwell’s “1984.”

“The media in the United States have become such a Big Brother, moving far beyond professional ethics and their own competence, raising accusations and passing judgments by fabricating false information,” she said.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/kremlin-sessions-controversy-impediment-relations-142926613.html

Let’s not forget that the “Russian interference” that this is all about consisted entirely of Russia allegedly sending Wikileaks genuine emails from private people’s accounts that it had cracked. The result was that the voters were better informed than they would otherwise have been. What exactly is wrong with that, and how is it supposed to affect the legitimacy of the transition of power?

    Milhouse: What exactly is wrong with that

    It’s against the law, among other things.

      Milhouse in reply to Zachriel. | March 2, 2017 at 3:29 pm

      How exactly is it against the law, and how is it different from all the other leaked information that is regularly published during election campaigns? What’s special about the fact (if it is a fact) that the crackers who obtained the information were Russian?

        Milhouse: How exactly is it against the law …

        18 U.S.C. § 2701

        Chapter I, Article 2 of the United Nations Charter prohibits interference in the domestic affairs of other nations (excepting threats to peace).

        Milhouse: how is it different from all the other leaked information that is regularly published during election campaigns?

        Campaign leaks are not illegal.

        Milhouse: What’s special about the fact (if it is a fact) that the crackers who obtained the information were Russian?

        Because there was a concerted effort by Russia to interfere in the U.S. election. Keep in mind that Russia is engaging in the same behavior against other nations, such as the Ukraine and Estonia in order to sow confusion and undermine democratic institutions.

          Milhouse in reply to Zachriel. | March 2, 2017 at 8:25 pm

          18 U.S.C. § 2701 is obviously irrelevant to anyone outside the US. Russia is a sovereign state and has the same right to spy on people in the US as the US does to spy on people in other countries. It is not even alleged, nor does anyone even imagine, that Russia did this spying at the behest of anyone in the US, or for the purpose of affecting the election. It was obviously done for the same purpose all spying is done, to gather all information that could possibly be helpful at some point. Knowing what John Podesta, a probable high official in the next administration, was hearing and saying, would have been of obvious use to the Russians.

          But the alleged “interference” was not the spying on private individuals in the US, but the leaking of what was found. What law is that against?

          Chapter I, Article 2 of the United Nations Charter

          You’re joking, right? How is that even remotely relevant?

          Milhouse: What’s special about the fact (if it is a fact) that the crackers who obtained the information were Russian?

          Because there was a concerted effort by Russia to interfere in the U.S. election.

          So what? They’re entitled to pursue their interest in lawful ways just like anyone else, just as the US government does in foreign elections. This is basic freedom of speech. Or do you think foreigners should never express an opinion about US elections, or USans about foreign elections?

          Informing voters of true and relevant information, that is not even state secrets and thus does not harm the US in any way, is so obviously benign that I can’t see what anyone’s getting excited about.

          Milhouse: 18 U.S.C. § 2701 is obviously irrelevant to anyone outside the US.

          That is incorrect. A U.S. warrant is generally enforced by Interpol, and extradition for cyber-criminal activity is common. If someone from Russia under indictment travels to, say, the Czech Republic or Spain, they will likely be arrested and sent to the U.S. for trial.

          Milhouse: It is not even alleged, nor does anyone even imagine, that Russia did this spying at the behest of anyone in the US, or for the purpose of affecting the election.

          “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

          Milhouse: But the alleged “interference” was not the spying on private individuals in the US, but the leaking of what was found. What law is that against?

          18 U.S.C. § 2701

          Milhouse: How is that even remotely relevant?

          Interference in the domestic affairs of a sovereign nation is against international law.

          Milhouse: So what? They’re entitled to pursue their interest in lawful ways just like anyone else

          Hacking and releasing private emails is not lawful by any stretch. Doing so to interfere in the U.S. election is a threat to American sovereignty.

          “What if a group of Russian paratroopers had dropped into Washington in the middle of the night, broke into the Democratic National Committee headquarters and physically taken the computers out and put them under their arms, and escaped in a submarine down the Potomac River?” King said. “That’s essentially what happened, it’s as if there was a physical intrusion. The fact it was in cyber doesn’t change the fact that, as Sen. (John) McCain said (Thursday), this was an attack on our democracy.”

          Milhouse in reply to Zachriel. | March 4, 2017 at 7:35 pm

          Russia is a sovereign nation and has as much right to spy on people here as the US does to spy on people there.

          Milhouse: It is not even alleged, nor does anyone even imagine, that Russia did this spying at the behest of anyone in the US, or for the purpose of affecting the election.

          “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

          That is an invitation to release what they have, not to engage in spying. By that time Clinton’s server had supposedly been wiped, and nothing was supposed to be recoverable from it. But there was every reason to believe that the Russians had cracked it long ago, and had copies of whatever was on it. There was nothing wrong with Trump inviting the Russians to release that information.

          Milhouse: But the alleged “interference” was not the spying on private individuals in the US, but the leaking of what was found. What law is that against?

          18 U.S.C. § 2701

          That’s a law against spying, not against telling people what was found.

          Interference in the domestic affairs of a sovereign nation is against international law.

          Bullsh*t. I thought your reference to the UN charter was meant as a joke; now I wonder whether you’re perhaps just stupid. Even to the extent that “international law” exists in the first place, there is no such “law”. Of course if there had been such a “law”, 0bama would have been guilty of breaking it regularly. But there isn’t, so it’s irrelevant.

          Hacking and releasing private emails is not lawful by any stretch. Doing so to interfere in the U.S. election is a threat to American sovereignty.

          In what way, exactly? How is the sovereignty of a democracy threatened by anyone providing voters with true and relevant information? That’s what’s supposed to happen in a campaign, after all, and foreigners have as much right as locals to try to persuade voters.

          Milhouse in reply to Zachriel. | March 4, 2017 at 9:30 pm

          To be clear, Trump has no financial relationships with any Russian oligarchs? I don’t give a flying **** what relationships he has or doesn’t have with Russian or any other oligarchs. It’s none of my or your business. Russian oligarchs are not the Russian government and there’s no reason he shouldn’t do business with them.

          Milhouse: That is an invitation to release what they have, not to engage in spying.

          It’s called participation. He is encouraging others to break the law.

          Milhouse: There was nothing wrong with Trump inviting the Russians to release that information.

          Of course it’s wrong to encourage hackers to release information they have no right to possess. It’s called participation.

          Milhouse: Even to the extent that “international law” exists in the first place, there is no such “law”.

          The U.S. is a signatory to the U.N. Charter, and it was ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1945.

          Milhouse: Of course if there had been such a “law”, 0bama would have been guilty of breaking it regularly.

          The U.S. has justified its actions based on the threat to peace, as allowed under the U.N. Charter. Regardless of international law, Russian interference in U.S. elections is a threat to sovereignty.

          Milhouse: How is the sovereignty of a democracy threatened by anyone providing voters with true and relevant information?

          Both the DNC and the RNC have a right to private communications. You are, in essence, advocating the end of privacy.

          Milhouse: I don’t give a flying **** what relationships he has or doesn’t have with Russian or any other oligarchs. It’s none of my or your business. Russian oligarchs are not the Russian government and there’s no reason he shouldn’t do business with them.

          You may want to look up the definition of oligarch.

    Walker Evans in reply to Milhouse. | March 2, 2017 at 4:04 pm

    I have no scientific polls to back this up, but in my not-at-all-humble opinion whatever the Russians did or did not do during the campaign had an impact on the final result that is statistically indistinguishable from zero! Those of us who live within the borders of Flyover Nation (thank you, Dana Loesch!) were going to vote against Her Royal Corruptness, period!

    Anyone who truly believes Russia had any influence on how we voted are living in Fantasy Land! Our votes were cast to keep HRC, the B*tch of Benghazi, out of the Oval Office at least as much as they were to put Trump in!

      Gremlin1974 in reply to Walker Evans. | March 2, 2017 at 6:34 pm

      But that is the problem with the delusional, they can’t take things that challenge their delusion. Dem’s and radical leftist especially truly believe they are the majority in this country. For them to lose so badly with what they saw as the best candidate ever is such a challenge to their delusion that admitting that they just got their butts kicked is just beyond their ability, so they have to create boogie men. Your just lucky that they aren’t screaming about aliens.

      Always remember Modern Liberalism is an acquired Mental Illness and you have to take that into account.

      inspectorudy in reply to Walker Evans. | March 2, 2017 at 9:45 pm

      Walker, I agree with you. If the stupid Demorats would just stop and think it through they would realize that it didn’t change one single vote. Does anyone think that a person who was going to vote for hillary with her lifelong affiliation with corruption and crime, which every Demorat already knew, would be persuaded to switch to Trump who is the Demorat anti-Christ? There can be no other answer but no!

      Milhouse in reply to Walker Evans. | March 4, 2017 at 9:33 pm

      The only reasonable effect the leak of the DNC and Podesta emails could have would be to influence Democrats, particularly Bernie Sanders supporters, to stay home or vote for Stein.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Milhouse. | March 2, 2017 at 6:07 pm

    One thing Milhouse, Wikileaks weren’t the actual hackers. Wikileaks was provided the information by hackers. So no, it was not illegal for Wikileaks to release the information.

      Milhouse in reply to Gremlin1974. | March 2, 2017 at 8:26 pm

      The allegation is that Russia did the cracking, and provided the information to Wikileaks. I’m not seeing how that’s a bad thing.

        Gremlin1974 in reply to Milhouse. | March 2, 2017 at 8:57 pm

        Oh, no I agree this is just a result of the left not being able to handle the fact that they aren’t really as popular as their delusion told them they were.

        Milwaukee in reply to Milhouse. | March 2, 2017 at 9:42 pm

        “The allegation…”
        Who is making this allegation? Besides the Democrats and their party operatives with bylines?

          Milwaukee: Who is making this allegation?

          Joint Statement from the Department Of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security: “The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations… These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process.”

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Milwaukee. | March 3, 2017 at 11:41 am

          @Zachriel

          You mean the statement by the completely compromised and bias Obama controlled DHS? Yea, that’s trustworthy.

          Oh and btw since that statement they have not provided one shred of evidence to support such a claim, nor have they provided evidence that the Trump campaign and/or administration is in anyway connected to the accusation. But hey what to fact matter…right?

          Milwaukee: You mean the statement by the completely compromised and bias Obama controlled DHS?

          Meet the U.S. Intelligence Community

          Milwaukee: Oh and btw since that statement they have not provided one shred of evidence to support such a claim

          Independent cyber-security firms; including SecureWorks, ThreatConnect, Fidelis, Mandiant, and CrowdStrike; have independently confirmed the findings of Russian involvement.

          Milwaukee: nor have they provided evidence that the Trump campaign and/or administration is in anyway connected to the accusation.

          That is still an open question; however,

          • We know that Russians hacked a major U.S. political party in order to interfere in the election in order to damage their presidential candidate.

          • We know that Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chair, worked with the Russian-allied Ukrainian president before his ouster. Manafort resigned after it was alleged he received large sums of off-the-books money.

          • We know that the National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, lied about the nature of his contacts with the Russian government.

          • We know that Attorney General Jeff Sessions was ‘less than fully truthful’ when testifying under oath about his contacts with the Russian government, such that he was forced to recuse himself from the investigation.

          • We know that Trump called for the Russians to release hacked emails from Hillary Clinton.

          • We know that Trump called for the imprisonment of his political opponent.

          • We know Russian money flowed into the Trump organization in years past.

          • We know from phone records that the Trump campaign had repeated contacts with the Russian government in the year before the election.

          • We know that other members of Trump’s team had repeated contacts with the Russians during the campaign and transition.

          • We know that Trump has refused to release his tax returns, and that there are a large number of potential and actual conflicts of interest.

          • We know that Trump has spoken glowingly of the autocratic head of Russian’s government while disparaging the leaders of democratic allies in Europe.

          • We know that Trump called members of the press “enemies of the people” for accurately reporting on the above.

          While not sufficient to constitute proof of wrongdoing, it is certainly sufficient to justify a closer look.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Milwaukee. | March 4, 2017 at 5:35 am

          @Zachriel

          Yea let me clue you in on the “intelligence community”, since I would bet I have more experience working with them than you do.

          First they never ever all agree on anything, period, the fact that they supposedly do should make you suspicious.

          Second the only place that actually says that they all agreed is the bias and compromised report you referenced earlier.

          Also, as far as Kings over the top statement that there is no difference between paratroopers and hackers the only thing I can say is anyone that would say that is either stupid or crazy.

          But keep on swallowing everything they throw at you. The progressive left just loves folks like you, they throw you a fake bone, then open the gate and you just go on happily humping and shitting your way through the neighborhood like a good little lapdog.

          Milwaukee: the only place that actually says that they all agreed is the bias and compromised report you referenced earlier.

          Well, yeah, an official statement by the Joint Statement from the Department Of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security. They are the relevant authorities concerning such matters. We also posted many other relevant facts.

          In reply, you waved your hands.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Milwaukee. | March 4, 2017 at 2:18 pm

          @Zachriel

          No you have not “provided facts” you have thrown out a bunch of politically motivated accusations, left wing talking points and outright lies none of which have actually been proven.

          “• We know that Russians hacked a major U.S. political party in order to interfere in the election in order to damage their presidential candidate.”

          No actually we only know that hackers that have been connected to Russia hacked a Major U.S. Political Party. We do not know that it was specifically to damage Clinton. I also not that you conveniently leave out that they also attempted to hack the other Major U.S. Political party but failed.

          “We know that Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chair, worked with the Russian-allied Ukrainian president before his ouster. Manafort resigned after it was alleged he received large sums of off-the-books money.”

          I won’t call this an outright lie, but it is an outright misrepresentation of the truth. Yes, he did work with the Ukrainian president, before working with the Trump Campaign. It has never been proven that Manfort received any under the table money, there are just ledgers that say he was owed money. Also guess who Manfort hired to help him with Ukraine here in the states…the Podesta Group…Humm, where have I heard that name before? But according to you just because he worked for them in the past this somehow proves that there is a vast russian conspiracy. Btw he also worked in the Philippines, any massive evil you can pull out of that?

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/19/paul-manaforts-complicated-ties-to-ukraine-explained/?utm_term=.db1b9fc482e4

          ” We know that the National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, lied about the nature of his contacts with the Russian government.”

          Yes he did and he was forced to resign in disgrace as he should have been. I note that you leave out the fact that the person he lied to was Trumps vice president.

          “We know that Attorney General Jeff Sessions was ‘less than fully truthful’ when testifying under oath about his contacts with the Russian government, such that he was forced to recuse himself from the investigation.”

          This is an outright lie and is proven to be a lie by the transcripts of Sessions hearing. Now it is even coming out that one of the “meetings” was nothing more than the ambassador shaking his hand and thanking him for the talk he had just given and was set up by the Obama administration. Sessions was asked if he had any contact with the ambassador as part of the campaign, he answered truthfully no, he is not required to expound on meetings he may have had with the ambassador in his position as a senator, in fact those meetings are none of that panels damned business. This is nothing more that Democrats trying to turn nothing into something. Oh and now we are finding out that these people who are screeching about Sessions meetings with the ambassador also had “meetings” but have lied and said they didn’t, you know like Nancy Pelosi.

          “We know that Trump called for the Russians to release hacked emails from Hillary Clinton.”

          So? Nothing illegal about that he did is publically and openly. Once again a nothingburger.

          “We know that Trump called for the imprisonment of his political opponent.”

          Yea and Bill Nye called for the imprisonment of people who think climate change is a bunch of crap. Also, Trump was only echoing the feelings of about half the nation. Clinton should be in prison or at least indicted and tried, which there is more than enough evidence to justify.

          “We know Russian money flowed into the Trump organization in years past.”

          OMG, and international business man made money in Russia, well goddamn get a fucking rope. Of course we get to hand Hillary right beside him for the money she received from Saudi Arabia and Russia. Hey, I went to Russia on a personal vacation when I was in the Army and had a great time, does that make me an international super spy?

          “We know from phone records that the Trump campaign had repeated contacts with the Russian government in the year before the election.

          We know that other members of Trump’s team had repeated contacts with the Russians during the campaign and transition.”

          Once again, so what? It’s not been proven that those contacts were illegal or inappropriate. Also, you ignore the Clinton campaigns contacts with foreign powers.

          “We know that Trump has refused to release his tax returns, and that there are a large number of potential and actual conflicts of interest.”

          First, it’s not required for him to release his Tax returns, so get over it or call your congressman and have him write a bill to make it required. Also, the “conflicts of interest” you bring up are only alleged not fact. But I guess they become true since Trump refuses to release his Tax returns? Even if he did release his tax returns when they didn’t show the conflicts that leftist wanted them to they would just claim they were forged or some other nonsense. So basically what you are making is the same argument the birthers did regarding Obama. When Obama refused to release his birth certificate for years it must have proven the birthers correct, so the one he released must be a fake, right?

          “We know that Trump has spoken glowingly of the autocratic head of Russian’s government while disparaging the leaders of democratic allies in Europe.”

          So? I happen to think Putin is twice the leader of most of the EU leaders. You know like Merkel who is letting her country be overrun by potbellied savages that are raping and murdering their way across her country.

          “We know that Trump called members of the press “enemies of the people” for accurately reporting on the above.”

          No he called them enemies of the people for making stuff up and making accusation that were easily proven wrong if they had actually done their jobs. I know leftist don’t like to admit that there is media bias but, oh well, I can only lead you to reality, I can’t make you believe.

          “While not sufficient to constitute proof of wrongdoing, it is certainly sufficient to justify a closer look.”

          A closer look that has been taken for months and so far has come up with zero. There is not a shred of proof that any of this acutally affected the outcome of the election. What it is time to do is accept that Hillary lost because she was and is a the worst candidate, a horrible person, pretty much the embodiment of pure evil. The people saw that and rejected her, deal with it.

          Milwaukee: No actually we only know that hackers that have been connected to Russia hacked a Major U.S. Political Party.

          “The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations.”

          Milwaukee: We do not know that it was specifically to damage Clinton.

          From the timing of the releases, it’s pretty obvious. In any case, the CIA and FBI agree that the hacks and releases were intended to help Trump in his election against Clinton.

          Milwaukee: It has never been proven that Manfort received any under the table money, there are just ledgers that say he was owed money.

          That’s right. And he resigned when those allegations became public.

          Milwaukee: Yes {Flynn} did and he was forced to resign in disgrace as he should have been.

          That’s right. Why would he lie?

          Milwaukee: This is an outright lie and is proven to be a lie by the transcripts of Sessions hearing.

          While not perjury, Session’s testimony was less than fully truthful. Again, why would he hide the truth?

          Milwaukee: So? Nothing illegal about that he did is publically and openly.

          It could be illegal, but he later said he was joking. With Trump, there’s no real distinction between truth and falsehood.

          Milwaukee: Yea and Bill Nye called for the imprisonment of people who think climate change is a bunch of crap.

          Did Bill Nye benefit from Russian hacking? Was Bill Nye vying for the highest office in the land?

          Milwaukee: Clinton should be in prison or at least indicted and tried, which there is more than enough evidence to justify.

          The FBI disagrees. In any case, it’s not the president’s decision to make, but one based on law and fact. Calling for your opponent to be locked up is something done by tinhorn dictators.

          Milwaukee: OMG, and international business man made money in Russia

          Owing money to Russian oligarchs would be a serious conflict of interest.

          Milwaukee: Of course we get to hand Hillary right beside him for the money she received from Saudi Arabia and Russia.

          All of Clinton’s tax returns have been divulged. The Clinton Foundation’s tax returns are public record.

          Milwaukee: Hey, I went to Russia on a personal vacation when I was in the Army and had a great time, does that make me an international super spy?

          Are you the president of your country and possibly indebted to Russian oligarchs for millions of dollars?

          Milwaukee: It’s not been proven that those contacts were illegal or inappropriate.

          No, but the pattern is sufficient to justify a closer investigation. Trump’s tax returns may be able to put much of this to rest.

          Milwaukee: it’s not required for him to release his Tax returns

          No, it’s not, but he is still covered by corruption laws, and by the Emoluments Clause. We know he accepted huge sums of money coming from Russia several years past, so it is quite possible he still owes these entities money.

          Milwaukee: Even if he did release his tax returns when they didn’t show the conflicts that leftist wanted them to they would just claim they were forged or some other nonsense.

          More than likely he has his taxes prepared by a professional auditing firm, so there would be no reason to doubt their authenticity. You’re not suggesting Trump would release forgeries?

          Milwaukee: When Obama refused to release his birth certificate for years it must have proven the birthers correct, so the one he released must be a fake, right?

          Obama provided his birth certificate to the relevant authorities, as required. He released his official State of Hawaii Certification of Birth in 2008, when he first ran for president.

          Milwaukee: So?

          Seriously? Putting an autocrat before leaders of democratic nations.

          Milwaukee: No he called them enemies of the people for making stuff up and making accusation that were easily proven wrong if they had actually done their jobs.

          You do realize that “enemy of the people” is a phrase from the Soviet Union’s most tyrannical era. Trump isn’t just some Twitterer tweeting from his porcelain throne. He’s the President of the United States, meaning he has the apparatus of government at his disposal, including apparatus for attacking “enemies of the people”.

          Milwaukee: A closer look that has been taken for months and so far has come up with zero.

          Actually, the list keeps getting longer.

          Consider if instead the Russians had hacked the RNC for the benefit of Hillary Clinton, who then tilted American foreign policy towards the Russians at the expense of democratic allies.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Milwaukee. | March 4, 2017 at 9:11 pm

          You keep referencing the report made by a corrupt administration and the anonymous or “secret” reports by the Intelligence community non-of which are actually available publicly.

          No, Session was not “less than truthful” he answered the question he was asked truthfully and completely and any accusation otherwise is an outright lie. His recusal was nothing but optics, it’s not like he would be leading the investigation personally anyway.

          “Seriously? Putting an autocrat before leaders of democratic nations.”

          That is one way of looking at it, however I see it as preferring a leader who will lead and doesn’t put foreign invaders ahead of their own people. Basically most of the EU’s leaders should be shot for treason in my opinion. Does that pretty much explain it for you?

          “More than likely he has his taxes prepared by a professional auditing firm, so there would be no reason to doubt their authenticity. You’re not suggesting Trump would release forgeries?”

          I just don’t believe you, so far you have done nothing but lie and make baseless accusations that are unsupported by evidence and fact so I would expect that behavior to continue.

          “You do realize that “enemy of the people” is a phrase from the Soviet Union’s most tyrannical era. Trump isn’t just some Twitterer tweeting from his porcelain throne. He’s the President of the United States, meaning he has the apparatus of government at his disposal, including apparatus for attacking “enemies of the people”.”

          I have a gun on my right hip right now, I have the apparatus to take a life at my disposal, does that mean I should be treated as if I killed someone already? How very Minority Report of you.

          “The FBI disagrees.”

          No the FBI director detailed for 30 minutes all the laws that she had broken and then he said no charges as he had been ordered to do by the corrupt administration.

          “Actually, the list keeps getting longer.”

          The only thing that is getting longer are your BS excuses.

          All of your assertions as to there is enough to look further are complete BS and not worthy of rebuttal.

          This is what it appears to be, deeply entrenched bureaucrats who are Obama cultist and are trying to interfere with the current administration because they are still butthurt over losing.

          “Consider if instead the Russians had hacked the RNC for the benefit of Hillary Clinton, who then tilted American foreign policy towards the Russians at the expense of democratic allies.”

          I would still be looking at facts and evidence and you would still be jousting at windmills trying to defend a woman who had no chance of winning the election in the first place.

          Milhouse in reply to Milwaukee. | March 4, 2017 at 10:04 pm

          Milwaukee: This is an outright lie and is proven to be a lie by the transcripts of Sessions hearing.

          While not perjury, Session’s testimony was less than fully truthful. Again, why would he hide the truth? You continue to lie through your teeth. If you were under oath, what you just wrote would be perjury, because it is a knowing and material falsehood. Session answered the question he was asked, fully and truthfully. He didn’t mention his meetings with the ambassador because he wasn’t asked about them, and had no reason to suppose anyone would be interested in them.

          You also continue to pretend that the IC is reliable and unbiased, when everyone has known for years that the CIA, at least, is and has always been in the pocket of the Democratic Party. (There exists some delusion on the far fringes of the left that Bush Sr has some sort of influence over it, just because he served briefly as its politically appointed director. I won’t accuse you of sharing this delusion.)

          You also pretend that Hillary Clinton doesn’t already have an absolutely established history of felony for which she should have gone to prison. Until you can provide an innocent explanation for the Cattle futures scandal, don’t prate about her innocence. Whether she can be convicted for them or not, we all — including you — know that she has committed serious felonies.

          Milhouse in reply to Milwaukee. | March 4, 2017 at 10:05 pm

          Oops, let’s try that again:

          Milwaukee: This is an outright lie and is proven to be a lie by the transcripts of Sessions hearing.

          While not perjury, Session’s testimony was less than fully truthful. Again, why would he hide the truth?

          You continue to lie through your teeth. If you were under oath, what you just wrote would be perjury, because it is a knowing and material falsehood. Session answered the question he was asked, fully and truthfully. He didn’t mention his meetings with the ambassador because he wasn’t asked about them, and had no reason to suppose anyone would be interested in them.

          You also continue to pretend that the IC is reliable and unbiased, when everyone has known for years that the CIA, at least, is and has always been in the pocket of the Democratic Party. (There exists some delusion on the far fringes of the left that Bush Sr has some sort of influence over it, just because he served briefly as its politically appointed director. I won’t accuse you of sharing this delusion.)

          You also pretend that Hillary Clinton doesn’t already have an absolutely established history of felony for which she should have gone to prison. Until you can provide an innocent explanation for the Cattle futures scandal, don’t prate about her innocence. Whether she can be convicted for them or not, we all — including you — know that she has committed serious felonies.

          Milhouse in reply to Milwaukee. | March 4, 2017 at 10:09 pm

          Oh, and not only doesn’t the foreign gifts and emoluments clause apply to the president, but even those who are covered by it, such as (just to give an example) Mr Sessions, can take all they like from Russian oligarchs, because they’re not the Russian government.

          See below.

    Milwaukee in reply to Milhouse. | March 2, 2017 at 9:39 pm

    “this is all about consisted entirely of Russia allegedly sending Wikileaks genuine emails from private people’s accounts that it had cracked.”

    None of the authors of those emails have denied writing them. Wikileaks has consistently said they did not get the emails from the Russians. The Democrats who wrote the emails aren’t embarassed about writing them, but that deplorables got to read them.

    The Democrats refuse to accept the electoral loss and transition peacefully. Milhouse it feels you are standing with the Democrats on this.

Democrats lie, whine and moan.
We probably need a new investigation into hilldawg’s server and any laws she may have broken. This time let Sessions make a determination on whether to proceed to trial or not.

Really, Thomas Friedman? With his wacko, conspiracy-laden mindset, all I can really say is that Tom is fried, man…

Gremlin1974 | March 2, 2017 at 9:00 pm

Tucker Carlson should see if he can get this wacko bird onto his show, I would love to watch Tucker, kill, clean, prep, and hang this morons ass on the trophy wall.

inspectorudy | March 2, 2017 at 9:48 pm

Two peas in the same egotistic pod. Freidman and John Kerry. They aspired to be great but always chose the wrong horse. They both married rich wives which have allowed them to make stupid remarks in public without losing their jobs. Neither has one ounce of credibility or ethics.

Is there a bigger putz than this Friedman guy? – Aside from the people who listen to him?

Gremlin1974: You keep referencing the report made by a corrupt administration and the anonymous or “secret” reports by the Intelligence community non-of which are actually available publicly.

The U.S. Intelligence Community is a widely disparate group, and their unified position implies strong confidence in the conclusion.

However, independent cyber-security firms; including SecureWorks, ThreatConnect, Fidelis, Mandiant, and CrowdStrike; have independently confirmed the findings of Russian involvement.

Gremlin1974: No, Session was not “less than truthful” he answered the question he was asked truthfully and completely and any accusation otherwise is an outright lie.

Q: “if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?”

Sessions: “Senator Franken, I’m not aware of any of those activities. 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.”

The answer was not “fully truthful” as stated.

Gremlin1974: That is one way of looking at it

Trump: “If he says great things about me, I’m going to say great things about him.”

Gremlin1974: however I see it as preferring a leader who will lead and doesn’t put foreign invaders ahead of their own people.

He makes the trains run on time, too.

Gremlin1974: Basically most of the EU’s leaders should be shot for treason in my opinion.

There’s a rule of law for that.

Gremlin1974: I have a gun on my right hip right now, I have the apparatus to take a life at my disposal, does that mean I should be treated as if I killed someone already?

No. But if you go around waving a gun and muttering that your neighbors are enemies, people will rightly be concerned.

Gremlin1974: No the FBI director detailed for 30 minutes all the laws that she had broken and then he said no charges as he had been ordered to do by the corrupt administration.

In fact, Comey explained why it didn’t warrant charges.

Milhouse: Oh, and not only doesn’t the foreign gifts and emoluments clause apply to the president …

“No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.”

The U.S. Presidency is an office of trust.

Milhouse: but even those who are covered by it, such as (just to give an example) Mr Sessions, can take all they like from Russian oligarchs, because they’re not the Russian government.

You too may want to look up the definition of oligarch.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Zachriel. | March 5, 2017 at 2:52 pm

    “The answer was not “fully truthful” as stated.”

    Actually it is 100% truthful none of his meetings were related to the campaign. The problem is not that he was less than truthful the problem is you are a damned liar who refuses to accept the truth because of you bias so you have to twist words or read into them to give them the meaning you wish.

    As an example, I have never said there wasn’t Russian involvement, in fact I said quite clearly that they even tried to hack both parties. Yet you continue to imply that I said the russians weren’t involved. What I have said is that there is no connection between this and the Trump Campaign, which there is no proof of such. Oh and no Trumps business dealings in Russia do not constitute proof.

    “In fact, Comey explained why it didn’t warrant charges.”

    LOL, no he didn’t he went directly from explaining how it was breaking the law to saying they do not rise to the level of filing charges. Then just a few days later he went before congress and all but said that he didn’t recommend charges because he was ordered not to charge her, not to mention I am sure he didn’t want to be assassinated by Team Clinton.

    “There’s a rule of law for that.”

    LMAO, that rule of law doesn’t even work here, if it did Hillary would already be in jail.

    “No. But if you go around waving a gun and muttering that your neighbors are enemies, people will rightly be concerned.”

    Trump has made one statement, there is no evidence that he will use any of his powers to attack the press, he doesn’t need to he can just freeze the ones he doesn’t like out, which is perfectly legal.

    Now, I grow tired of dealing with a bias lair. God Bless you.

      Gremlin1974: Actually it is 100% truthful none of his meetings were related to the campaign.

      That wasn’t the question, which was “if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?” Sessions volunteered “Senator Franken, I’m not aware of any of those activities. 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.” That is called be less than “fully truthful”.

      Considering that Flynn was fired for lying about his contacts with Russian government officials, it would have behooved him to answer fully. Instead, he left out what would obviously have been concern to the Senate.

      Gremlin1974: The problem is not that he was less than truthful the problem is you are a damned liar who refuses to accept the truth because of you bias so you have to twist words or read into them to give them the meaning you wish.

      That’s the difference between us. We are willing to accept that you are answering to the best of your knowledge and ability, even though your opinions are often detached from the truth.

      Gremlin1974: As an example, I have never said there wasn’t Russian involvement, in fact I said quite clearly that they even tried to hack both parties.

      Nor have we said so. We could assume bad faith, but we are happy to grant that you may have merely misread our comments.

      Gremlin1974: What I have said is that there is no connection between this and the Trump Campaign, which there is no proof of such.

      There’s no direct evidence, but the circumstantial evidence is quite extensive.

      Gremlin1974: Oh and no Trumps business dealings in Russia do not constitute proof.

      Trump’s secrecy concerning his business dealings is certainly pertinent, especially as we have evidence that Russian money has poured into the Trump organization.

      Gremlin1974: no he didn’t

      Comey explained that charging Clinton would be unequal treatment under the law.

      Gremlin1974: no he didn’t Then just a few days later he went before congress and all but said that he didn’t recommend charges because he was ordered not to charge her

      Please provide a precise quote for this assertion.

      Gremlin1974: rule of law doesn’t even work here

      So you’re advocating extrajudicial execution of the leaders of the E.U. Do you really expect the vast majority of readers to take your position seriously when it lays on a foundation of mob rule?

      Gremlin1974: Trump has made one statement

      Trump has repeatedly attacked the press, and called the press an enemy of the people on more than one occasion. Keep in mind that the press is actually provided special protection in the Bill of Rights, something you and Trump don’t seem to understand.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Zachriel. | March 5, 2017 at 2:54 pm

    Oh, and “waving a gun around” is illegal and a crime, so that part of your reply doesn’t even apply to Trump, since he has taken no action against the press with his powers as President.

      Gremlin1974: Gremlin1974: I have a gun on my right hip right now, I have the apparatus to take a life at my disposal, does that mean I should be treated as if I killed someone already?

      It’s called an analogy. If you go around waving carrying a gun and muttering that your neighbors are enemies, people will rightly be concerned.

Gremlin1974 | March 6, 2017 at 5:32 pm

“That wasn’t the question, which was “if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?”

So the question wasn’t acutally about his meetings then, it was about what he would do if he found that there was evidence.

“Senator Franken, I’m not aware of any of those activities. 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.”

How is this less than truthful, unless you have some evidence that he was lying. His meeting as a Senator would not fall under the question asked. What he said was he can’t comment on something that he doesn’t have information about. Which is a very professional and honest answer. You can’t prove that he did have information at that time and once again his meetings, such as they were as a Senator are a completely separate issue.

“Considering that Flynn was fired for lying about his contacts with Russian government officials, it would have behooved him to answer fully. Instead, he left out what would obviously have been concern to the Senate.”

That would be a bit difficult since Sessions confirmation hearings were in January and the Flynn incidents didn’t happen until February. Or are you now implying that Sessions should have known the future?

His answer was direct and honest, just because you refuse to accept that doesn’t change reality. Though since you are apparently expecting psychic powers now that would make you divorced from the truth and reality. Though I really shouldn’t expect more from someone who refers to themselves with the “Royal We”.

“There’s no direct evidence, but the circumstantial evidence is quite extensive.”

And there is a reason circumstantial evidence is treated in the manner that it is in our legal system, because it is unreliable and does not meet any legal standard.

“Trump’s secrecy concerning his business dealings is certainly pertinent, especially as we have evidence that Russian money has poured into the Trump organization.”

Actually no you are just wrong, just because he had business dealing with russia does not constitute probable cause to suspect any wrongdoing, he is an international businessman, I would be more suspicious if he had never had dealings with russia.

Also, there is no law against accepting forigen donations, if there was then that would be something else Hillary should be in jail for, but you don’t seem to have a problem with those forigen donations. Trump reported all his donations to the satisfaction of the FEC.

No, I expressed a personal opinion I am not suggesting anything to anyone. Besides it would appear that the people of europe are waking up finally, since Merkel will be lucky to keep her seat and Brexit.

“Keep in mind that the press is actually provided special protection in the Bill of Rights, something you and Trump don’t seem to understand.”

How has Trump infringed on their first amendment rights? They are free to report the truth. Also, remember that protection only goes so far, freedom of the press does not protect them from printing lies and misinformation based on their obvious bias. Also, it offers no protection from being called out or their bias and BS. Unless Trump actually uses his power as president to interfere with the press he is perfectly within his rights to call them out and even to verbally attack them back. Twitter is not a presidential power.

For the sake of my precious time I will also address you other comment here.

“It’s called an analogy. If you go around carrying a gun and muttering that your neighbors are enemies, people will rightly be concerned.”

No, its called a false analogy. As you point out above the first amendment protects my speech, so I can mutter whatever in the hell I please as long as it doesn’t directly harm someone, the gun is irrelevant to that fact.

    Gremlin1974: How is this less than truthful, unless you have some evidence that he was lying.

    Who? Someone affiliated with the Trump campaign.
    Activity? Communicated with the Russian government.

    Answer: I’m not aware of any of those activities.

    Gremlin1974: His meeting as a Senator would not fall under the question asked.

    Sessions was formally affiliated with the campaign.

    Gremlin1974: And there is a reason circumstantial evidence is treated in the manner that it is in our legal system, because it is unreliable and does not meet any legal standard.

    We’re not convicting anyone. We’re suggesting the evidence is sufficient for a closer look.

    Gremlin1974: Actually no you are just wrong, just because he had business dealing with russia does not constitute probable cause to suspect any wrongdoing

    It indicates a conflict of interest.

    Gremlin1974: As you point out above the first amendment protects my speech, so I can mutter whatever in the hell I please as long as it doesn’t directly harm someone, the gun is irrelevant to that fact.

    Just as people have a right to be concerned when someone carrying a gun wanders around muttering about “enemies”.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to Zachriel. | March 7, 2017 at 2:55 pm

      “Answer: I’m not aware of any of those activities.”

      Now your proof that this was a lie? Oh, that’s right you don’t have any. Also, don’t bring up his meetings in his senatorial role, they were obviously outside the bounds of this question and therefore so it is understandable why he didn’t bring them up.

      “Sessions was formally affiliated with the campaign.”

      Yea, now prove that he had contact with “the russians”, senatorial duties not included, or he had knowledge of others having contact with “the russians”.

      Also, there would need to be some evidence that even if someone did have contact with “the russians” that the contact was inappropriate. Neither of these things you have any evidence circumstantial or otherwise.

      “We’re suggesting the evidence is sufficient for a closer look.”

      What evidence? None has been provided. There is no evidence that the Trump campaign was connected to the hacking that went on so there is no “evidence”.

      “It indicates a conflict of interest.”

      No it indicates that he was a businessman with business in many other countries including Russia. But if we use your logic I guess we can now go after Hillary for her contact and dealings in the middle east.

      See the problem is your strawman boogie men are not evidence circumstantial or otherwise.

      I also notice you just kind of move one when people blow your BS accusations out of the water, like you know saying that sessions should have know better because of Flynn, when the Flynn incident hadn’t even happened yet. It just goes to prove that you are either a paid leftist troll hack or suffering some kind of mental instability with paranoia features. In either case I hope you get the help you need and I will just be ignoring your BS out of hand from here on out. God Bless.

        Gremlin1974: Now your proof that this was a lie?

        He said that he knew of no one “affiliated with the Trump campaign” who had “communications with the Russians”. That is a false statement.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Zachriel. | March 8, 2017 at 1:07 am

          No it isn’t you just don’t like it.

          Was Sessions affiliated with the Trump campaign? Yes.
          Did Sessions have communications with the Russians. Yes.

          Therefore, did someone affiliated with the Trump campaign have communications with the Russians? Yes.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Zachriel. | March 8, 2017 at 2:45 pm

          “Therefore, did someone affiliated with the Trump campaign have communications with the Russians? Yes.”

          And I usual you omit/lie to twist things. The question was; “if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?”

          “in the course of this campaign”

          Which obviously limits the question to meeting related to the campaign and any one honest would have understood from the context of Franken’s remarks that the question was limited to meetings concerning the campaign. So once again that strange sound you hear is your argument based on lies and unsupported accusation being blown out of the water.

Gremlin1974: “in the course of this campaign” Which obviously limits the question to meeting related to the campaign

“Yeah, I met with the spy, but we only talked about the weather, so I didn’t lie when I said I never met with the spy during the course of the campaign.”

Sessions was less than fully truthful.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Zachriel. | March 9, 2017 at 12:15 pm

    No, because you don’t get to go back and say; “but, but he should have said this!” He answered the question he was asked, once again his meetings in his capacity as a member of the Senate lie outside of the questions scope. Franken limited to the campaign, not Session. Just because you don’t like it is irrelevant. You don’t get to broaden the scope of the question later and accuse the man of being less than truthful, all that does is prove you to be a partisan hack.

Gremlin1974: He answered the question he was asked

Actually, he didn’t answer the question. He volunteered that he had had no contact with the Russians, which was false.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Zachriel. | March 9, 2017 at 9:01 pm

    NO he had no contact with the russians regarding the campaign which is what the context and question were about. Once again I know you want to make an issue of his meetings as a senator but they aren’t germane to the question and you are just full of crap.

Gremlin1974: NO he had no contact with the russians regarding the campaign

The phrase wasn’t “regarding the campaign”, but “in the course of the campaign”, which means during the time of, such as “When in the course of human events…”

Furthermore, Sessions didn’t use the qualifier, but said “I didn’t have — did not have communications with the Russians.” Don’t worry. He won’t be prosecuted for perjury. Nonetheless, he was less than fully truthful.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Zachriel. | March 10, 2017 at 11:10 pm

    He didn’t need a qualifier, because anyone objective and honest realized the question was limited to contact regarding the campaign. Also, he won’t be prosecuted because his answer was completely truthful, your bias aside.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend