Jeff sessions didnt disclose russian meetings

[NATI BENGALS]

(03-03-2017, 08:10 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: It seems to me that if someone or some group was being investigated over something they didn't do, they would be eager for the investigation to proceed and for it to be thorough and unbiased enough that no one ever questioned the results (since they obviously are secure in the knowledge that they never did anything wrong in the first place).

I honestly don't know what I expect Trumps tax returns to show. The mere fact he lied and never released them gives me pause for concern. 

If he has nothing to hide simply releasing his tax returns eases a good amount of concern. 

[*bfine32*]

(03-03-2017, 09:52 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Remember that two wrongs don't make a right thing you were arguing the other day?

I do recall and this holds true. So why is the left so quick to ignore their wrong?

Quote:Hillary sending emails doesn't make it OK for Russia to interfere with our elections. I know this is a vastly complex concept.  

Ok I'll just trust you as my tiny brain cannot comprehend the concept. I don't recall anyone saying it is OK with Russia to interfere with our elections; however, I have no problem with them making public the non-secure traffic they intercept. Now if they did anything to interfere with our elections; I would not condone it. 

Quote:But just trust me on this. It will make it look like you care about your country more than your party to your friends and family.

My family and friends are well aware of my love for this country, I do not have to put on a facade (look) for them. You most likely meant to say: "It will make it look like you care about your country more than your party to mad and petty folks on this message board"

Quote:Hillary is gone. The good old days of every headline being benghazi and emails is over. I know, sad. It was fun a couple days ago when you were able to bring her up on treason charges. But it just doesn't last like it used to. Time to use some of that skepticism and critical thinking to hold the ones in power to your very strict standards. 

If Hillary is gone then why was she running her trap to the DNC? I've always given a degree of latitude to the Executive Branch; regardless of my views of their policies. I see no reason to stop that 

[Rotobeast]

(03-03-2017, 04:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Seems like Sessions meets with a lot of ambassadors on a rather frequent basis.

Seems like his Surname fits.
Sessions....
as in he had a lot of sessions with ambassadors....
Sessions....

Ok, it's not funny.

[Rotobeast]

(03-03-2017, 05:08 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Including Flynn, Sessions and this guy who came out on Fox News yesterday, I've heard seven names mentioned.

(03-03-2017, 07:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think the question that often gets overlooked is:

What exactly could/ did Russia do to influence our election?

They mooned Sarah Palin, while she was trying to enjoy a mojito on her back porch.

[Rotobeast]

(03-03-2017, 09:45 PM)hollodero Wrote: As you said yourself. There's not much behind it. Podesta's password was what, password?

It was "p@ssw0rd".
But, still.....

I'm not to sure on the uproar.
The NSA is so far up other countries' officials asses, they're listening to radio frequencies through the fillings in their molars.
The CIA frickin' LIVES to shape other governments.
I still don't care for any Russian involvement, although Guccifer 2.0 was an independent Romanian.

However..... should those taco bowls scale the wall, I'm sending Low-T Jeb in with the Guac !!

[NATI BENGALS]

(03-03-2017, 11:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I do recall and this holds true. So why is the left so quick to ignore their wrong?

Ok I'll just trust you as my tiny brain cannot comprehend the concept. I don't recall anyone saying it is OK with Russia to interfere with our elections; however, I have no problem with them making public the non-secure traffic they intercept. Now if they did anything to interfere with our elections; I would not condone it. 

My family and friends are well aware of my love for this country, I do not have to put on a facade (look) for them. You most likely meant to say: "It will make it look like you care about your country more than your party to mad and petty folks on this message board"

If Hillary is gone then why was she running her trap to the DNC? I've always given a degree of latitude to the Executive Branch; regardless of my views of their policies. I see no reason to stop that 

LOL...


Keep doing the mental gymnastics to make yourself feel better. 

Still questioning the conclusions of our major intelligence agencies... Because after all there is no question You and Trump know more than the generals, intelligence agencies, and all the investigative journalists that continue to find giant mounds of bullshit. 

[JustWinBaby]

I enjoy watching libs go apeshit over someone 2-3 steps down the ladder with absolutely no evidence of wrong-doing.

This is the Dems "birther" scandal, except it's actually mainstream.

[hollodero]

No answer for me any more? All is lost in patisan bickering... that is a bit disappointing I got to say.´
Aaaaaand... I'm over it.

As for the answer I got:

(03-04-2017, 12:00 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: It was "p@ssw0rd".
But, still.....

I'm not to sure on the uproar.
The NSA is so far up other countries' officials asses, they're listening to radio frequencies through the fillings in their molars.
The CIA frickin' LIVES to shape other governments.

But only to spread freedom and democracy and just for the good of humankind.
You're the "good guys"... :)

(03-04-2017, 12:00 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: I still don't care for any Russian involvement

And I still don't get that.
I get Trump fans, becuse the Russians damaged Hillary, and for them the Democrats are probably the bigger foe right now than Putin. But why don't you mind.
I would mind a lot, and I don't really love my country as much.

Oh and of course I looked up your guy Amash. Getting too deep into that would be a bit too deep for me, though, that's still very domestic. Let's see if he waves through the questionable things in the end or stands up. To get the conservative party back from the alt-right takeover.

Cause that's what it needs. Conservatives need to claim their party back.

[Rotobeast]

(03-04-2017, 07:55 AM)hollodero Wrote: But only to spread freedom and democracy and just for the good of humankind.
You're the "good guys"... :)

See, they've got your country programmed.

(03-04-2017, 07:55 AM)hollodero Wrote: And I still don't get that.
I get Trump fans, becuse the Russians damaged Hillary, and for them the Democrats are probably the bigger foe right now than Putin. But why don't you mind.
I would mind a lot, and I don't really love my country as much.

I would mind, but THEY didn't hack that, although Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear have done plenty of other infiltrations.
I am not happy about the other ops.
I assure you, there is more that COULD come out about Hillary.
I also think it's minor, considering Russia has a treasure trove of info from Snowden that hasn't been used against us.

(03-04-2017, 07:55 AM)hollodero Wrote: Oh and of course I looked up your guy Amash. Getting too deep into that would be a bit too deep for me, though, that's still very domestic. Let's see if he waves through the questionable things in the end or stands up. To get the conservative party back from the alt-right takeover.

Cause that's what it needs. Conservatives need to claim their party back.

Both parties need to get back to serving the people and adhere to The Constitution.
The level of disconnect is mind-boggling.

[hollodero]

(03-04-2017, 08:31 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: I would mind, but THEY didn't hack that, although Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear have done plenty of other infiltrations.
I am not happy about the other ops.
I assure you, there is more that COULD come out about Hillary.
I also think it's minor, considering Russia has a treasure trove of info from Snowden that hasn't been used against us.

Again, the hacking part is not the troubling thing, the releasing of the Emails via Wikileaks is.
Foreign interference in domestic affairs. The USA, of all countries, says "meh" to that. Puzzling.

(03-04-2017, 08:31 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: Both parties need to get back to serving the people and adhere to The Constitution.
The level of disconnect is mind-boggling.

Hm. Did Democrats behave unconstitutional?
Did the good grand old party?

It's Trump and his alt-right "third power" that constantly pushes these boundaries. And Trump's biggest asset are the deep trenches between blue and red, that's why he gets away with things, that's why he can turn your proud country into an international laughing stock (don't think I overstate that one) and no one puts a halt to that. But well, just my opinion.
Conservatives need to claim their party back!   And all of you need to claim your country back. But you get lost in bickering. Sad.

[Rotobeast]

(03-04-2017, 09:33 AM)hollodero Wrote: And all of you need to claim your country back. But you get lost in bickering. Sad.

There are people working to change attitudes.
I try to do it, locally.
Arguing does nothing but solidify people's opinions.
Honest discussion and prioritizing of common goals should be of the utmost importance.
We need to fix what we agree on and butt heads later.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[GMDino]

[BoomerFan]

(03-03-2017, 11:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If Hillary is gone then why was she running her trap to the DNC? I've always given a degree of latitude to the Executive Branch; regardless of my views of their policies. I see no reason to stop that 

So she's not allowed to talk to anyone ever again or you'll change the topic from the current president who is relevant to our lives to someone who currently holds no office? 

This isn't good faith argumentation. 

[Griever]

(03-06-2017, 12:34 PM)BoomerFan Wrote: So she's not allowed to talk to anyone ever again or you'll change the topic from the current president who is relevant to our lives to someone who currently holds no office? 

This isn't good faith argumentation. 

this is all he does in these threads

[CageTheBengal]

(03-06-2017, 12:34 PM)BoomerFan Wrote: So she's not allowed to talk to anyone ever again or you'll change the topic from the current president who is relevant to our lives to someone who currently holds no office? 

This isn't good faith argumentation. 

Yeah that argument never works even when you are a child.

"Two wrongs don't make a right." I think most kids have been hearing this throughout their life.

That's page 1 to Trump's guide to being a politician though. (Written in crayon.)

You dangle shiny keys in front of someone's face trying to distract them from the actual subject at hand.

He relies on logical fallacies to try to prove his point but he's very poor at using them.

Thankfully for him there are people in this country who are very poor at knowing when they are getting played.

[BmorePat87]

she sure does run her trap

[GMDino]

Personally, I think this is nitpicking.  Just because he met with him doesn't mean 1) They talked about anything 2) He had ANY idea who he was talking too 3) It affected his "speech" in any way since those were mostly him talking about things he "didn't know" and who had slighted him most recently along with talking point to rile up scared/angry people.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-kislyak-russia_us_58bf087ee4b0e6e6ccb56870?ks0x2e97iy3ng3c8fr

Quote:Donald Trump Met Russian Ambassador During The Campaign, Despite Repeated Denials
On April 27, Trump met Sergey Kislyak in Washington, D.C., before a big foreign policy speech.

[/url]
President [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topic/donald-trump]Donald Trump and his advisers have, on dozens of occasions, denied Trump’s campaign aides and other associates had any contact with Russian officials. 


Those denials were not true. At least five members of his team met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak before Trump officially took office. 

White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders tried to mitigate the spiraling situation last week, telling reporters the main issue was that Trump himself had never met with any Russian government officials during the campaign.

“The big point here is the president himself knows what his involvement was, and that’s zero,” Huckabee Sanders said on March 3. “And I think that he’s the primary person that should be held responsible, and he had no interaction, and I think that’s what the story should be focused on.”

But according to a May 13, 2016 report in The Wall Street Journal noticed by AmericaBlog, Trump had at least some interaction with
Kislyak on April 27, right in the midst of campaign season.

The communication happened right before Trump delivered a foreign policy speech at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C.

The Wall Street Journal reported: 

Quote:“I believe an easing of tensions, and improved relations with Russia—from a position of strength only—is possible, absolutely possible,” Mr. Trump said in a foreign-policy speech at Washington’s Mayflower Hotel in April. “Some say the Russians won’t be reasonable. I intend to find out.”
A few minutes before he made those remarks, Mr. Trump met at a VIP reception with Russia’s ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Ivanovich Kislyak. Mr. Trump warmly greeted Mr. Kislyak and three other foreign ambassadors who came to the reception.

It is not clear what Trump and Kislyak discussed, or how extensive the interaction was. The New York Times also recently mentioned that Kislyak had attended Trump’s speech. Dimitri Simes, president of the Center for the National Interest, told the outlet he had simply introduced Trump to Kislyak in a receiving line at the hotel: 

Quote:Mr. Simes introduced Mr. Kislyak to Mr. Trump in a receiving line last April at a foreign policy speech hosted by his center at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington. Mr. Kislyak was one of four ambassadors who sat in the front row for Mr. Trump’s speech at the invitation of the center. Mr. Simes noted that Mr. Sessions, then a senator from Alabama, was there, but he did not notice whether he and the ambassador spoke at that time.

Huckabee Sanders told The Huffington Post on Tuesday that there was no real meeting with Kisylak. 

“The National Interest hosted Mr. Trump’s foreign policy speech and pre-speech reception. Several ambassadors were present. Mr. Trump was at the reception for about five minutes and then went immediately to the podium,” she said. “We have no recollection of who he may have shaken hands with at the reception and we were not responsible for inviting or vetting guests. To state a ‘meeting’ took place is disingenuous and extremely misleading.”

Simes also said he didn’t think there would have been time for an extensive meeting between Trump and the ambassador. 

“From everything I saw, when the receiving line was over, the Secret Service led Mr. Trump to a specially cleared holding area behind the podium where he was supposed to speak,” he said Tuesday. “There would have been no opportunity for him to talk to Kislyak separately.
After the speech was over, Mr. Trump returned to the holding area and then left the hotel without any time or format for a private encounter with anyone. Again, the Secret Service managed his movements.”

Trump has been unable to move on from his administration’s ties to Russia after U.S. intelligence agencies concluded the Russian government had interfered in the U.S. election to help Trump defeat Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. So far, there is no evidence of collusion between Trump’s team and the Russian government. 

But the administration has taken hits as reports come out that some of the president’s top campaign officials met with Russian officials, despite denying they had done so. Michael Flynn stepped down as national security adviser in February over the issue, and Attorney
General Jeff Sessions recently promised to recuse himself from the Justice Department’s investigations into Russia’s meddling in the presidential race after The Washington Post reported that he had met with Russia’s ambassador twice during the campaign.

During his confirmation hearing, Sessions told senators that he “did not have communications with the Russians.”

Trump himself told NBC News on Jan. 11 that no members of his campaign staff had communicated with Russian officials. 

But the more the past lies pile up the harder it is to not look like they are lying.

[Griever]

(03-08-2017, 08:11 AM)GMDino Wrote: Personally, I think this is nitpicking.  Just because he met with him doesn't mean 1) They talked about anything 2) He had ANY idea who he was talking too 3) It affected his "speech" in any way since those were mostly him talking about things he "didn't know" and who had slighted him most recently along with talking point to rile up scared/angry people.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-kislyak-russia_us_58bf087ee4b0e6e6ccb56870?ks0x2e97iy3ng3c8fr



But the more the past lies pile up the harder it is to not look like they are lying.

still falls under if there wasnt any wrong doing, why lie about it?

[GMDino]

(03-08-2017, 02:36 PM)Griever Wrote: still falls under if there wasnt any wrong doing, why lie about it?

Which is why I added the caveat at the end.  They can't seem to help themselves.  They HAVE to lie because they HAVE to look perfect.  No mistakes.  Nothing wrong.