Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

WSJ Attempts to Stir More Trouble for Sessions

WSJ Attempts to Stir More Trouble for Sessions

Quit grabbing at nothing.

On Thursday, The Wall Street Journal published a report that then-Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) used campaign money to travel to the event where he mingled with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

There’s a few problems with this assertion. Sessions used his campaign account to travel to the Republican National Convention…which is a campaign event for all of those politicians.

How do I logic? Better yet, how do I not grasp at straws?

The media has been a circus since The Washington Post caused a mess by trying to make people believe that Sessions did not answer questions honestly at his confirmation hearing for attorney general.

I easily shot down the Post‘s report by using evidence within the article.

So Sessions has become a hot topic and easy target within the administration this week so why not continue adding more inflammatory accusations of wrong doing?

Shame on you, Wall Street Journal. Now let me use your article to prove you, like the Post, have grabbed at something that doesn’t exist:

Campaign-finance-disclosure records show Mr. Sessions’ re-election campaign account was used for travel expenses in Cleveland at the same time the Republican National Convention was held in July, rather than using official funds that would pay for travel by him or other members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

On July 16, two days before the convention began, his campaign account made two payments of $1,395 to the Sheraton Cleveland Airport. A week later, the account made two payments to the Westin Hotel in Cleveland totaling $223. All payments were described as for “lodging.”

No payments reimbursing Mr. Sessions appear in Mr. Trump’s campaign account, the records show.

So the senator used his campaign money to travel to the RNC, a campaign event for all politicians who attend, which provides him excellent exposure for his constituents. Let’s face it. That’s why politicians attend, whether they have an election coming up or not. It’s great exposure!

Sessions spoke at the convention about Trump, who won the nomination. He also spoke about Trump at the Heritage Foundation event, which is where he spoke with the ambassador.

But he spoke with Kislyak after the event.

Again, it bothers me that Sessions doesn’t remember what the two spoke about. I don’t know about you, but after an event and I see people, I tend to not talk about the event. Instead, conversations lean toward social topics like family and hobbies.

But it seems that the Wall Street Journal, like the Post, has tried to make something out of nothing. Sessions used campaign money to attend a campaign event. Going with WSJ’s thesis, I find that Sessions did absolutely nothing wrong.

The fact is until Sessions and Kislyak pony up their conversation, we do not know for sure if Trump’s campaign came up.

Maybe the media should concentrate more on Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s big government plans at the Department of Justice?


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


I’d like to better understand how ‘the campaign coming up in conversation’, had that actually happened, would be something ‘wrong’.

I realize the noose they’re trying to hang him with is his confirmation hearing testimony, but I’ve seen zero evidence that could be construed to provide a motive to deceive.

    Milhouse in reply to Daiwa. | March 3, 2017 at 4:50 pm

    The campaign coming up in conversation would not be wrong. But if it did, then he would seem to have lied when he said he’d never had any contact with any Russian official about the campaign. If it never came up, then he told the whole truth and nothing but the truth and this whole non-story is a huge waste of time.

      Daiwa in reply to Milhouse. | March 3, 2017 at 6:33 pm

      If he were a Democrat, he’d just say he mis-remembered & everybody would go right back to sleep. No harm, no foul when you’re a Dem.

The left is way overplaying their hand here. Of note, my usually vociferous left-wing law school friends are remarkably silent on Facebook about this. Maybe they know this is fake news too?

That is what the media wants, no one to mess with their big government entrenchment.

Humphrey's Executor | March 3, 2017 at 4:46 pm

“I smell a big fat commie rat.” Gen. Buck Turgidson.

Isn’t this racist, this hysterical assumption that all Russians are evil?

What do they want? Abject surrender. In pieces will do, since in the Trump era they won’t get it in one big lump.

They had nothing before, but managed to get Sessions to recuse himself from an investigation which won’t happen. Not much of a victory, but far more than they should have won.

They smell blood. His blunder was that he gave it to them. Now, they’ll try for more. The obvious fact that they still don’t have a case is irrelevant if he’s going to surrender anyway.

    snopercod in reply to tom swift. | March 3, 2017 at 5:40 pm

    They smell blood. His blunder was that he gave it to them.

    Exactly. What I don’t get is why? Certainly he checked with the President before announcing his decision. I just can’t picture Trump allowing Sessions to capitulate to the democrat mob.

      Close The Fed in reply to snopercod. | March 3, 2017 at 8:38 pm

      To Snopercod:
      I don’t think Sessions discussed it with Trump. Trump commented or tweeted he didn’t think Sessions should have recused himself.

      inspectorudy in reply to snopercod. | March 3, 2017 at 8:55 pm

      Maybe he already knows that there is nothing there and realizes that there will be no probe or investigation after this crap is outed for what it is. BS!

      Barry in reply to snopercod. | March 3, 2017 at 8:58 pm

      “Certainly he checked with the President before announcing his decision.”

      Sessions is a professional of high character, so no, I doubt he asked Trump what he should do. Perhaps he told the president what was coming.

    MSO in reply to tom swift. | March 3, 2017 at 8:20 pm

    The way this is playing out makes the odds that the Obama DOJ launched an investigation before Obama left the White House almost a certainty.

    The Republican Senate has been very slow moving Trump’s appointments through; I wouldn’t be at all surprised to discover that they’ve pressured Sessions to recuse himself. Keeping Obama’s DOJ intact increases the GOP’s power over Trump.

    Look how the GOP house is playing the health care game; we’ll need to pass the new bill to see what’s in it. The GOP is not on our side.

      Rick in reply to MSO. | March 3, 2017 at 11:16 pm

      Absolutely correct about the GOP leadership. Watch Tucker’s interview with Cornyn if you need further proof of leadership’s intent to stymie Trump.

“I don’t recall” is always a safe answer.

    Yup. It’s worked for Hillary HUNDREDS of times!

    …or “I don’t quite understand your question, could you rephrase it?”

    (Works best on questions over a minute long, as Franken’s seemed to be)

    Then when answering it, always paraphrase it back to them. “As I understand, you were asking how I would act as AG if this hypothetical event happened, and I’m afraid I can’t comment on any hypothetical events.”

I certainly agree with the hope that the MM “quit grabbing at nothing,” but what I REALLY want to see is the spineless Republicans start fighting back.

President Trump should do two things and really explode their heads.
1. Write up a blanket pardon for Sessions.
2. Award Sessions the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Baby Elephant | March 3, 2017 at 5:31 pm

The Obama State Department brought Kislyak and many other ambassadors to the Republican Convention… Now Obama loyalists are leaking out slowly one by one which Republicans he spoke to… Sounds like a setup from the get go…

I enjoy your writing, but I can’t understand why the questions of Mr. Session’s chit-chat- I don’t remember those types of conversations because they’re those kind of conversations. Chit-chat. I would remember if I talked substance but not if I don’t. That is exactly the nature of It. When there’s nothing to remember, you don’t.

    Mary Chastain in reply to scfanjl. | March 3, 2017 at 6:59 pm

    Because as a journalist I’m naturally curious! 🙂

      heitmany in reply to Mary Chastain. | March 3, 2017 at 8:17 pm

      Sorry I don’t remember those conversations that are really about nothing. Someone could ask me a week later what I spoke to someone about from a chance encounter and I’d have to say “uh, I don’t know.” Chance encounters or handshake encounters just don’t stick in my head.

    murkyv in reply to scfanjl. | March 3, 2017 at 7:01 pm

    Sounds like it was more of just a handshake and “How ya doin'” kind of encounter

    “Howz the grandkids?”

aloysius9999 | March 3, 2017 at 6:07 pm

“Again, it bothers me that Sessions doesn’t remember what the two spoke about. ”

Why are you projecting your chit-chat skills unto AG Sessions?

“after an event and I see people, I tend to not talk about the event. Instead, conversations lean toward social topics like family and hobbies.”

You mean the kind of stuff that men don’t tend to remember? At least, my wife claims we’ve had those sorts of conversations frequently. She remembers them in detail. I take her word for it because I don’t remember a single word.

    Mary Chastain in reply to irv. | March 3, 2017 at 7:00 pm

    I asked a few guy friends and they agreed with me, which is why I wrote that. They may not talk about the same stuff as us females, but it’s general life chit chat.

      Tom Servo in reply to Mary Chastain. | March 4, 2017 at 11:17 am

      Something your other guy friends may have mentioned, my wife often complains that we can have complete conversations where I apparently never hear a word she says, and simply punctuate the conversation with “uh-huh”, “yeah”, and “i dunno, what are you thinking” anytime a pause makes it seem appropriate.

      It’s kind of a guy thing to do.

      The guy’s justification is always “hey, she wants to talk, so I’m doing her a favor by standing here and letting her talk.”

Does Obama remember pledging “more flexibility after the election” to the Russians?

jack reacher | March 3, 2017 at 7:36 pm

Today, Rush mentioned that it was Obama that set the meeting up at the convention. Perhaps AG Sessions went to convention AND THEN, after the trip was financed, was asked by Obama to meet with the Russians.

This way, today’s news was planned.

Close The Fed | March 3, 2017 at 8:41 pm

It is so hard to get the congressmen changed. My gosh, if Trump hasn’t taught them something about guts, nothing will.

Newsflash! Republican Senator uses campaign funds to travel to campaign event! Democrats outraged!

Trump’s actions prove Russian influence nonexistent – energy production and military growth.

inspectorudy | March 3, 2017 at 9:01 pm

“The fact is until Sessions and Kislyak pony up their conversation, we do not know for sure if Trump’s campaign came up.”

Oh, you mean like slick willy and lyin loretta did? Jeff could just say they were talking about their grandkids and golf. That only works if you are a Demorat. If you are Trump or one of his, then you have to have a signed video made by the DNC to be believed. We see the pattern here folks. They also went after Pence today for using his private e-mail for, wait for it, BUSINESS! OMG! No! I can think of no one in our government that would do such a thing! Can anyone imagine having such chutzpah?

“Again, it bothers me that Sessions doesn’t remember what the two spoke about.”

In a scale of 1 – 10, rank your number of conversations with those of AG Jeff Sessions in the last year.

Do you think you even merit a “1”?

20 years ago I would remember most everything including short conversations. Now, no, I remember nothing unimportant.

He is 70 or so. No need to remember meaningless drivel.

Sessions shouldn’t have reused himself. If he was determined to recuse himself he should have made hus recuse effective only upon the senate confirming all of Trump’s DOJ appointments. That would make both the gop and dems get off their arses.

Trump should appoint a bunch of czars to run things pending all these confirmations

legalizehazing | March 3, 2017 at 10:53 pm

I’m so glad someone else noticed these articles from the WSJ. I’m still mulling my subscription I’ve them.

The thing that kept me from pulling the trigger was that they did have the facts in there, even if they were buried. … in a terrible story with a Buzzfeed clickbate title. So obnoxious

    DDsModernLife in reply to legalizehazing. | March 3, 2017 at 11:13 pm

    With regard to AG Sessions, no one should be surprised that WSJ would pile-on. As far as they’re concerned, he’s the anti-Christ.

    From wikipedia:

    In a July 3, 1984 editorial, the [WSJ Editorial] board wrote: “If Washington still wants to ‘do something’ about immigration, we propose a five-word constitutional amendment: There shall be open borders.”

      inspectorudy in reply to DDsModernLife. | March 4, 2017 at 12:12 am

      As hard as the WSJ is to stomach, you have to realize that they are two separate newspapers. The first half is totally Rupert Murdoch and his liberal staff. The business and opinion pages are at least fair. They are an open borders paper and they make me sick a lot of the time but they do offer an objective counterbalance to the liberal hypocrisy of the left. There is no other paper like it in the country today. Murdoch and his minions are going to destroy FNC and the WSJ. Bret Baier is almost unwatchable now he is so pompous and anti-Trump. Even John at midday is becoming a parrot of the anti-trump mantra and he has a son in the Army! Smith, Hemmer, O’Rielly and the other sycophants are all becoming “Neutral” about Trump which means that they are following Murdoch’s orders. Hannity and Carlson are all that’s left. Dobbs on the business channel is fine too but there is not enough to counter all the crap from the alphabet channels.