Jeff Sessions met with Russian Ambassador twice in 2016

[Bodakane]

Wait...people think Trump masterminded this?

That's ridiculous. It was Bannon. It's been Bannon. Trump is Bannon's puppet.

They're all guilty and when they are brought up and convicted of treason, you'll all see.

[Xeones]

It would take actual collusion. So what, people have contact with people in Russia. That doesn't mean anything. Where is the evidence that the Trump or members of his campaign colluded with Russia to do anything?

That is why we need an investigation that the republicans and the Trump supporters here are against.

The Trump campaign was in constant contact with Russian officials while Russia was launching cyber attacks on the US. Why? That is a question that needs an answer and "DAMN THOSE LEAKERS" isn't an answer.

[Bodakane]

It would take actual collusion. So what, people have contact with people in Russia. That doesn't mean anything. Where is the evidence that the Trump or members of his campaign colluded with Russia to do anything?

Since when has any law enforcement agency released all the details of an ongoing investigation?

Simple fact of the matter is that we could have video of Trump blowing Putin while handing him the keys to the WH and you and the other Trumpers would claim it's a lie.

[alexw]

Some new info has recently come out. JD Gordon an advisor to Trump met the Russian ambassador at the RNC just like Sessions. He also is the one who got the platform changed to remove language about arming Ukraine to enable it to resist Russia. Another key point is that Trump was 100% directly involved in the change. Remember that at the time Trump categorically denied that the change in language had anything to do with him when it was actually done on his orders.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ing-up/518490/

On CNN, Jim Acosta reported more about his phone conversation with J.D. Gordon.

“Gordon said he was part of the effort pushed by the Trump campaign to put some language in the GOP platform that essentially said that the Republican Party did not advocate for arming the Ukrainians in their battle against pro-Russian separatists,” Acosta related. “He said that his is the language that Donald Trump himself wanted and advocated for back in March at a meeting at the unfinished Trump hotel here in Washington D.C. J.D. Gordon says then-candidate Trump said he did not want to ‘go to World War III over Ukraine,’ and J.D. Gordon says at the Republican convention in Cleveland he advocated for language in that Republican Party platform that reflected then-candidate Trump’s comment.”

Oh and we have this little nugget from the delegate who tried to get the arming Ukraine language put in in the first place -

http://businessinsider.com/jd-gordon...17-3?r=US&IR=T

Diana Denman, the GOP delegate who proposed amending the Ukraine platform to include the "lethal weapons" language, contradicted Gordon's version of events (about which we now know he lied) in an interview with Business Insider in January. She said Gordon and another Trump campaign representative asked the cochairmen of the subcommittee to table the amendment after she read it aloud.

"Two men sitting over to the side of the room — I had no idea who they were but later found out they were Trump representatives — jumped up and tore over to get behind the three cochairmen," she said.

Gordon then left the room to make a phone call, Denman said. Equal parts confused and angry over her proposal being scuttled, Denman said she confronted Gordon about whom he was calling.

"I'm calling New York," Gordon replied, according to Denman.

"I work for Mr. Trump, and I have to clear it," she recalled him saying, apparently in reference to the amendment.

[Kujako]

Some new info has recently come out. JD Gordon an advisor to Trump met the Russian ambassador at the RNC just like Sessions. He also is the one who got the platform changed to remove language about arming Ukraine to enable it to resist Russia. Another key point is that Trump was 100% directly involved in the change. Remember that at the time Trump categorically denied that the change in language had anything to do with him when it was actually done on his orders.

ManCheetoian candidate?

[Kiri]

Hillary DID have positions of power (Multiple positions really) where she did leave messes, disasters and various other scandals.

Much of the deflection to Hillary is not President vs President - where you would be correct that its not relevant... the deflection is outrage over Trump while ignoring the same or worse in Hillary. Racism? Hillary has it. Wall street? Elite 1%? Funny Money? the list goes on and on...

The Left is losing it's shit over stuff it ignores/ignored in leadership on the left - aka Obama, Hillary, Pelosi, Reid, etc.

Complaining about "deflection to someone who isn't the President" is a convenient way to deflect from the horrible example that Hillary is.

That point would be valid if and only if it was not used to absolve Trump of whatever is happening. If people would acknowledge that Trump has the same problems, yes, but usually the rhetoric is 'Hillary did bad stuff too and you did not complain then, so you can't complain now'. That just doesn't work on people who are no big fans of Hillary but criticize Trump, because in that case it truly is just a deflection.

Ya Russia bought a Toronto based company that among other places has mines in the US that produces Uranium, and even though it was signed off by like 10 different agencies, Hilary is the one who sold it to the Russians

You forgot the best part - no uranium ever went to Russia. They own the mines but they are selling the uranium to the US.

[Felya]

Yeah, i was lying so hard that u could not deny anything i posted, just added you comments and asked some trivial questions.Just to derail all ur shit: Putin was prime minister in 1999. And frankly i don't care what "u know", i'm here for lulz from Skroe and other morons who tell me what "really happened" in my country and now that u can understand Russian: отебись от меня уебище либерастское, втирай бабкам на Брайтон Бич про злбного Путина-националиста поедающего еврейских молоденцев.

I gave you explicit examples of why you are wrong.

Nice job derailing my shit. Putin became president in 1999, before which he was Yeltsin's prime minister, along with about 8 others. The current Russian president is Putin, his prime ministers are Victor Zutkov and Dimitry Medvedev.

Oops? I know Russian current events, better than you... lucky for you, you got banned...

- - - Updated - - -

Considering the average Russian male's life expectancy of 64 (up from 59 in 2008), perhaps you people should consider eating more and drinking less?

I for one, am going to enjoy living to around 85 years.

Putin just last year, under massive scrutiny, increased their social security equivalent by 50$ a year. If Russian men actually hit retirement on avarage, Russian current social security would be bankrupt. Our is going to be bankrupt because we live well into the 70s, his is because Putin's buddies that resemble Trump a lot, busy robbing the country blind.

- - - Updated - - -

Much of the deflection to Hillary is not President vs President - where you would be correct that its not relevant... the deflection is outrage over Trump while ignoring the same or worse in Hillary. Racism? Hillary has it. Wall street? Elite 1%? Funny Money? the list goes on and on...

Deflation from Trump? You are bitching about Hillary's 1% status, while Trump is a NYC oligarch? Hillary's "racism", while Trump had to settle discrimination in renting court case? Funny money about versus a guy who refused to reveal his taxes and hasn't paid federal taxes in over a decade? You do know Trump is deregulating Wall Street?

Trump is, everything you can only imagine about Hillary... including being president...

[gyrados]

No, most really don't. The real issue is not that he had a meeting, it's that he said no meeting happened whilst under oath.

ah ok yeah lying is never good i could def see that bein an issue lol

[mage21]

And then he lied again and said it was in his capacity as a member of the Armed Services Comittee (a weird excuse already) and not as a surrogate, when in fact, he was on his trip using Trump 2016 campaign funds.

He's lying, period.

No, he used his own re-election campaign funds. Trump campaign funds never paid for anything, Skroe.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...ention-reports

Anyway, anyone poking their head in might want to read this for the best rundown I've read so far about this:

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...ed-to-stop-the

In short, the left is scaring up controversy against any and all Trump appointees that they fear will make political changes they don't agree with. It is politics after all, and it's dirtier than ever.

[Orbitus]

Hillary DID have positions of power (Multiple positions really) where she did leave messes, disasters and various other scandals.

Much of the deflection to Hillary is not President vs President - where you would be correct that its not relevant... the deflection is outrage over Trump while ignoring the same or worse in Hillary. Racism? Hillary has it. Wall street? Elite 1%? Funny Money? the list goes on and on...

The Left is losing it's shit over stuff it ignores/ignored in leadership on the left - aka Obama, Hillary, Pelosi, Reid, etc.

Complaining about "deflection to someone who isn't the President" is a convenient way to deflect from the horrible example that Hillary is.

I didn't say Hillary is a fucking saint but compared to fucking Trump? You bet your sweet ass she is a saint. First of all, she isn't in league with a possible fucking enemy of the state. Email? Non-scandal. Benghazi? Investigated to fucking death, still non-scandal.

Hillary isn't fucking relevant in this conversation, that is why your comments and deflection is a WASTE OF FUCKING TIME. Talk about the issue at hand. That Trump's campaign is literally fucking imploding.

[Breccia]

The FBI found nothing on Flynn, so yes, we absolutely believe he was forced to resign. We all know Trump will fire someone for wearing the wrong shoes to a meeting.

So your defense is, that while Flynn happened to call Russia without permission, and then happened to lie about it to everyone except Trump, and Trump routinely before, and after, talked about what a good guy Flynn was and how much support he gave Flynn, Trump fired Flynn anyway because he's chaotic and erratic.

Okay.

I'm not saying that. . . the FBI is saying that.

This sounds a lot like "when I said I had no contact with Russians under oath, what I meant to say was no official contact".

- - - Updated - - -

I didn't say Hillary is a fucking saint but compared to fucking Trump? You bet your sweet ass she is a saint.

Just compare the Clinton Foundation with Trump's charity. That's all you need to know.

[Poopymonster]

Well... we can say one thing... he definitely is the President of his supporters. The same crap counter arguments and (horrendously bad) "gotchas" and whataboutism.

For the President of the United States... the leader of the free world... to do this though? Wow. The man who occupies the seat of Washington, Lincoln, FDR, Kennedy and Reagan is now a garden variety terrible forum troll.

Nice President you got there deplorables.

It's like the comments section of Fox News came to life in a off colored orange body.

[Orbitus]

Just compare the Clinton Foundation with Trump's charity. That's all you need to know.

Oh I know, The Clinton Foundation has given AIDS medication to people all over the world but mainly to Africans. The Trump Foundation has done nothing but enrich Trump. There is a reason it has basically be forced to shut down.

[Breccia]

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...ed-to-stop-the

The OP ED suggests Democrats oppose sessions because he is "fair minded".

Yeah, calling bullshit on that one.

Also, I fail to see how it's "scaring up controversy" in the case where he volunteered a lie under oath, more to the point, volunteered a lie under oath that directly refuted his ability to do his job. Oh, and he recused himself, so he basically admitted it (see also "no contest").

[Poopymonster]

It depends if there is another shoe that will drop. Since this is the Trump Administration, waiting for that other shoe so far has been a really sure bet. They keep dropping..

It's like a goddamn earthquake in Amelda Marcos closet.

[mage21]

The OP ED suggests Democrats oppose sessions because he is "fair minded".

Yeah, calling bullshit on that one.

Also, I fail to see how it's "scaring up controversy" in the case where he volunteered a lie under oath, more to the point, volunteered a lie under oath that directly refuted his ability to do his job. Oh, and he recused himself, so he basically admitted it (see also "no contest").

1. Didn't lie under oath. Answered the question in the context of Trump Surrogates.

2. Should have been more careful in his reply. Not a reason to resign, not even close.

3. Recused himself to avoid tainting any possible investigation with suspicion.

Of all three, saying that his recusal is admitting to anything is the most disappointing.

[Breccia]

1. Didn't lie under oath. Answered the question in the context of Trump Surrogates.

Well someone hasn't seen the video. Go back and watch it.

2. Should have been more careful in his reply.

Yeah, he should have considered not volunteering a lie. You do know the lie wasn't part of the question, and that he did not answer the question, right?

3. Recused himself to avoid tainting any possible investigation with suspicion.

And if he did nothing wrong, if this really was a whole lot of nothing, there would be no suspicion, especially from the GOP side. There was. Say what you want on these forums, but when GOP heads are saying he needs to recuse himself, I think it's safe to say it's not a hand-wavable problem.

Saying he didn't want to taint the issue with suspicion is like saying Flynn resigned, not because he spoke to Russia when he wasn't allowed to -- even though Trump said it was fine and would have asked him -- but because he lied to Pence, yet told the truth to Trump who also lied to Pence, about something Trump said didn't matter. It's a good cover story, but that's about it.

[Orbitus]

1. Didn't lie under oath. Answered the question in the context of Trump Surrogates.

2. Should have been more careful in his reply. Not a reason to resign, not even close.

3. Recused himself to avoid tainting any possible investigation with suspicion.

Of all three, saying that his recusal is admitting to anything is the most disappointing.

1. He most certainly did lie under oath because he said he NEVER met with them. Context fucking matters. We have already been through this bullshit. We ALSO have where he charged it either to the Trump campaign, was reimbursed by them, or he used his own campaign funds. If he was doing this under Senate business, why didn't he use the Senate accounts? Why did he meet them at the RNC? Why were they at the RNC at fucking all?

2. He committed perjury, if they pursue it, he can be arrested. Resigning might save him from that.

3. If he had nothing to worry about, why did he recuse himself?

[mage21]

Well someone hasn't seen the video. Go back and watch it.

Watched it. Very clear he was answering the question in relation to cooperation between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives. It seems exceedingly clear, actually, on video.

Yeah, he should have considered not volunteering a lie. You do know the lie wasn't part of the question, and that he did not answer the question, right?

Still not a lie. Calling it a lie is a mischaracterization. He brought it up as part of his response that he couldn't comment on it.

And if he did nothing wrong, if this really was a whole lot of nothing, there would be no suspicion, especially from the GOP side. There was. Say what you want on these forums, but when GOP heads are saying he needs to recuse himself, I think it's safe to say it's not a hand-wavable problem.

Oh there's suspicion, or at least the purporting of suspicion, by the left and the media particularly. And this affects the public. The responsible thing to do after these kinds of accusations, however false, is to recuse yourself in order to have the most fair investigation. In no way is recusal an admittance of fault or wrongdoing.

By interpreting the words used at the hearing in the strictest, most context-free way possible, you can provide an argument that is able to bear the weight of the idea that there is suspicion and lies.

[Breccia]

Watched it. Very clear he was answering the question in relation to cooperation between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives.

The question was, sorry for paraphrasing, "if any member of Trump's campaign is found to have communicated with Russia, what would you do?"

Sessions then volunteered that he hadn't communicated with Russia.

Neither question, nor answer, said "as a campaign member". Sessions backtracked.

Also, Sessions never answered the question. He volunteered a lie instead of hitting a softball question out of the park.

Plus, let's not forget,
a) he was the only SAFC member to talk to the Russian ambassador last year. His meetings and phone calls involved zero other members.
b) there has yet to be any form of official statement or memo or calendar or anything that said Sessions met with the Russian Ambassador, on SAFC business.
c) he met the Russian Ambassador in Cleveland, flying there on GOP money not SAFC money, and
d) is in a growing list of Trump's team who have done exactly this. Flynn, for example, did exactly this.

Sessions has yet to volunteer a non-Trump-campaign reason for these meetings. It is not commonplace for SAFC members, senior or otherwise, to talk behind closed doors with a hostile foreign power, off the record, and alone. Sessions did so while part of a campaign that Russia was trying to actively help by way of hacking, which Trump specifically asked for.

If Sessions had a good reason, and his answer to that was very clear, the GOP would not have pushed for his recusal. They did.