Jeff Sessions met with Russian Ambassador twice in 2016

[Orbitus]

Oh the media has been pro-left for some time now, Shark.

- - - Updated - - -



Do you want a copy paste of my earlier replies? Say the word and I'll go back in my post history, find where I took the time to explain it, and copy paste it. I know this thread is 48 pages long now, not unreasonable not to want to go through it all, but I'm sure you can appreciate an individual tiring of rehashing the same sentiments and arguments all over again for a new audience every couple of hours.

Go for it, give it a shot. I guarantee someone with more patience than me will thoroughly pick it apart since I will most likely end up rolling on the floor laughing at your defense of the indefensible.

[Gorgodeus]

That's just it though; since all of this stuff started before he was elected, it could be retroactive.

It would also have the side effect of clearing the board of his appointees, effectively burning the field and salting the earth where he made those decisions in office. This would be a powerful precedent to set to discourage this kind of thing in the future.

That is not how law works. If the law says you can't be elected if you have been convicted of treason, that is what it means. Was he convicted prior to being elected? No.

[Asotcha]

So I'm only halfway through reading this thread (I'm on page 30 at the time of posting this), so someone else may have beat me to it, but Trump has been on twitter! He posted a statement on Sessions, spread across about 4 tweets.

"Jeff Sessions is an honest man. He did not say anything wrong. He could have stated his response more accurately, but it was clearly not intentional," Trump said. "This whole narrative is a way of saving face for Democrats losing an election that everyone thought they were supposed to win. The Democrats are overplaying their hand. They lost the election and now, they have lost their grip on reality. The real story is all of the illegal leaks of classified and other information. It is a total witch hunt!"





Hahahahahahahhaa xD

[LaserSharkDFB]

Oh the media has been pro-left for some time now, Shark.

Not really, not to the same degree that right-wing media is pro-right. And even if they were, that doesn't make them wrong, or even dishonest. But as you note, we've been down this road before, and it's a fool's errand to try to have an honest conversation about the media with anyone in Trump's camp.

[mage21]

Go for it, give it a shot. I guarantee someone with more patience than me will thoroughly pick it apart since I will most likely end up rolling on the floor laughing at your defense of the indefensible.

Here's my take:

Clarify the question? It was information that he gave to congress freely, without being asked.

He clarified why he answered the way he did:

"Let me be clear, I never had meetings with Russian operatives of Russian intermediaries about the Trump campaign. The idea that I was part of a ‘continuing exchange of information’ during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government is totally false. That is the question that Senator Franken asked me at the hearing, and that’s what got my attention as he noted it was breaking news… and that is the question I responded to. I did not respond by referring to the two meetings - one very brief after a speech, and one with two of my senior professional staffers with the Russian ambassador in Washington - where no such things were discussed. In my reply to the question of Senator Franken was honest and correct as I understood it at the time. I appreciate that some have taken the view that this was a false comment. That is not my intent, that is not correct.”

Seems reasonable.

Clearly Sessions interpreted the question within the framework of Russian surrogates coordinating with Russian officials, and said that he isn't aware of any of those activities and he himself had not had any contact with Russians, so he couldn't comment. Seems pretty obvious he meant no Russian contact within the context of surrogate activity. I think it's blatantly dishonest to seize on the precise wording to say that he meant he had never spoken with a Russian official ever. That's ridiculous.

So that's this thread. Don't get me started on Mike Pence supports "conversion therapy".

[mage21]

Not really, not to the same degree that right-wing media is pro-right. And even if they were, that doesn't make them wrong, or even dishonest. But as you note, we've been down this road before, and it's a fool's errand to try to have an honest conversation about the media with anyone in Trump's camp.

We'd be having the same conversation 6 years ago, friend. This has nothing to do with Trump.

- - - Updated - - -

All that left wing radio!

The study is from the Media Research Council, so take that for what it's worth, but 88% is pretty frickin' bad.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...h-of-office-8/

[Jun]

We'd be having the same conversation 6 years ago, friend. This has nothing to do with Trump.

- - - Updated - - -



The study is from the Media Research Council, so take that for what it's worth, but 88% is pretty frickin' bad.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...h-of-office-8/

Hostile because he starts telling everyone that the mainstream media is all fake and can't be trusted, with exceptions like Breitbart, which only has some major issues with favoritism, as Steve Bannon is kinda important now.

Hit the beehive with a stick, you're gonna get stung. Common sense.

[LaserSharkDFB]

We'd be having the same conversation 6 years ago, friend. This has nothing to do with Trump.

No, we really wouldn't, unless you go in deep for InfoWars and talk radio.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/195542/am...s-new-low.aspx

Six years ago, trust in the media was declining, true, but was not at the abysmal rating it is now. It's dropped twelve points in six years, and eight from 2015 to 2016. Most of that is fueled by Republicans, who are - not coincidentally - being told by their own media sources that the rest of the media is lying to them:

While it is clear Americans' trust in the media has been eroding over time, the election campaign may be the reason that it has fallen so sharply this year. With many Republican leaders and conservative pundits saying Hillary Clinton has received overly positive media attention, while Donald Trump has been receiving unfair or negative attention, this may be the prime reason their relatively low trust in the media has evaporated even more. It is also possible that Republicans think less of the media as a result of Trump's sharp criticisms of the press. Republicans who say they have trust in the media has plummeted to 14% from 32% a year ago. This is easily the lowest confidence among Republicans in 20 years.

So, Democrats tend to trust the MSM, and Republicans tend not to trust it. So who is right? How can we tell? Why, with fact checking, of course. FactCheck, Politifact and Snopes all do a good job of impartially presenting the facts, for the most part. Yet it's almost a reflex action for conservatives to claim those sites are biased and dishonest themselves, without ever giving any evidence of this.

Point is, the right has been conditioned to distrust the MSM, because the right-wing media found that it works to push their message. Trump uses this for his own purposes, to the point where it's all but impossible to convince people like you that he's done anything wrong.

[Dome Fossil]

At least that was an honestly grassroots movement, and not this artificial, bused-in, bullshit.

The Tea Party? It was an honest grassroots movement created and paid for by the Koch brothers.

[Orbitus]

We'd be having the same conversation 6 years ago, friend. This has nothing to do with Trump.

- - - Updated - - -



The study is from the Media Research Council, so take that for what it's worth, but 88% is pretty frickin' bad.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...h-of-office-8/

Sorry but why trust a site that has a HUGGGGGGEEEEEEEEE fucking conservative bias? Especially when they are describe as "exposing and combating liberal media bias",

- - - Updated - - -

Here's my take:



Clearly Sessions interpreted the question within the framework of Russian surrogates coordinating with Russian officials, and said that he isn't aware of any of those activities and he himself had not had any contact with Russians, so he couldn't comment. Seems pretty obvious he meant no Russian contact within the context of surrogate activity. I think it's blatantly dishonest to seize on the precise wording to say that he meant he had never spoken with a Russian official ever. That's ridiculous.

So that's this thread. Don't get me started on Mike Pence supports "conversion therapy".

And your take means fuck all when Sessions gave his answer UNDER OATH that he NEVER MET WITH THE RUSSIANS. It doesn't matter if he was a fucking senator at the fucking time. If I were a senator and asked under oath for a cabinet position if I ever talked to the Russians at any point in time in ANY WAY SENSE OR FORM over the last fucking year, I would be saying no if I actually didn't meet with them. To say he didn't meet with them for the campaign, while he was talking to them at the FUCKING RNC, is fucking asinine. The reason he said no, is because he knew his vote was close and people like McCain and Graham would have voted against his fucking ass.

[Cthulhu 2020]

"The real story is all of the illegal leaks of classified and other information." - Trump

Oh really. Do tell what classified information that is true is being leaked out of your government. It's almost as if the things they're saying about Trump and Sessions are true, and Trump is so stupid that he denies it on one side of his mouth then says all of the leaked information about him is illegally leaking classified info. If it's fake, then it's not classified information or otherwise, and typically when it's fake, politicians IGNORE IT. That's right, when tabloids run shitty stories about them that are completely false, they ignore it, rather than try 50 times to scream over everyone that it's fake.

And of course the Trumpkins are already parroting what Trump himself says, claiming that all of this info about Russian contacts coming out of government is illegal and the traitors need to be caught and jailed. Gee, what was that guy's name that they loved so much, Edward something... come on guys, I realize that basically every single position on government is filled with hypocrisy when it's your guy, but can you at least be consistent about government transparency?

[Wyrt]

Sorry but why trust a site that has a HUGGGGGGEEEEEEEEE fucking conservative bias? Especially when they are describe as "exposing and combating liberal media bias",

The liberal media is a myth anyway. Media is pro-corperation. All the media is owned by like 5 or 6 companies.

[Theodarzna]

Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak Appeared As Obama White House Visitor At Least 22 Times

The visitor logs, which Obama made public in 2009 in a push for transparency, show that the long-time Russian ambassador to the United States visited the White House at least 22 times between 2009 and 2016.

Kislyak appeared in the logs as recently as September 2016 when he had a meeting scheduled with one of Obama’s senior advisers, John Holdren, in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. The other visitors listed at the meeting are Marina W. Gross, Alexander Ermolaev, Alexey Lopatin, Vyacheslav Balakirev and Sergey Sarazhinskiy. Though the appointment was scheduled to begin at 12:00 pm, it does not include an end time.

Kislyak was also listed on the logs in July 2016, March 2016, January 2016, August 2015, April 2014, February 2014, May 2013, February 2013, November 2012, December 2011, July 2011, December 2010, October 2010, May 2010, April 2010, February 2010, March 2010, December 2009 and September 2009.

(source)

Obama may be in the conspiracy, working under the thumb of Putin, so said to see the network of conspirators grow. Or you know, government officials meet with ambassadors all the time?

[Orbitus]

(source)

Obama may be in the conspiracy, working under the thumb of Putin, so said to see the network of conspirators grow. Or you know, government officials meet with ambassadors all the time?

Your fucking source is the Daily Caller, a website owned by Tucker Carlson of fucking Fox News. There is a fucking difference between Obama and Sessions, Flynn, Trump, and the rest of Trump's campaign. OBAMA WAS THE FUCKING PRESIDENT. The president is fucking authorized, a campaign fucking isn't. If you don't realize the fucking difference, that is on you.

[Theodarzna]

Your fucking source is the Daily Caller, a website owned by Tucker Carlson of fucking Fox News. There is a fucking difference between Obama and Sessions, Flynn, Trump, and the rest of Trump's campaign. OBAMA WAS THE FUCKING PRESIDENT. The president is fucking authorized, a campaign fucking isn't. If you don't realize the fucking difference, that is on you.

Did he make it up?

Ah, never mind. I'll be sure its nothing but HuffPo, MSNBC and the CIA's own press releases from here on out. :3

Sessions was a Senator at the time am I correct?

[Orbitus]

Did he make it up?

Ah, never mind. I'll be sure its nothing but HuffPo, MSNBC and the CIA's own press releases from here on out. :3

Sessions was a Senator at the time am I correct?

And lied under oath that he NEVER MET with any of the Russians. He gave that information freely. Doesn't matter if he was a fucking senator or not, when you lie under oath that you never met with them, and then it comes to light that you did, that is fucking perjury.

[mmowin]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.52ede8f0c181

So yeah, the Washington Post is reporting that Jeff Sessions met with the Russian Ambassador to the US twice last year while he was an active part of the Trump campaign. What's more, he has evidently committed perjury, given he said under oath during his confirmation hearings in January that he had not met/spoken with the Russian government.

Sessions spokesperson is claiming that it was in his capacity as a senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee, but supposedly no other member of the committee met with the Russian ambassador.

Will be delicious if this leads to Sessions being forced to resign, just like Flynn.

At the very least, it's a strong piece of evidence supporting calls for an indepedent prosecutor to investigate Trumps and his campaigns ties to Russia.

If they didn't put Hillary in jail for her crimes, they aren't going to anything to Sessions / Trump.

[Orbitus]

If they didn't put Hillary in jail for her crimes, they aren't going to anything to Sessions / Trump.

What crimes? Be specific.

[Mormolyce]

If they didn't put Hillary in jail for her crimes, they aren't going to anything to Sessions / Trump.

You mean those crimes she was never charged with?

[Shadowmelded]

(source)

Obama may be in the conspiracy, working under the thumb of Putin, so said to see the network of conspirators grow. Or you know, government officials meet with ambassadors all the time?

The guy is a senior diplomat, of course he'll have had meetings at the White House. The issue with Sessions is talking to him during the campaign (logan act) and lying about it under oath (perjury). The other Trump team ties to Russia also raise suspicion.