So, you’re saying that Sessions has so many meetings with Russians that they’re just part of the routine to him?
I’m not sure if this was a serious question or not. But in case it is, no that’s not what I’m saying.
I’m saying that Sessions has had so many meetings with bigwigs of various sorts and nationalities that a meeting that might seem significant and memorable to an ordinary citizen might not be nearly so memorable to him.
I gave a similar example earlier of a Democratic senator declaring she had never met with the Russian ambassador and then being tripped up by the evidence.
I only heard the summary on the news, but he seemed to do well. A lot better than I expected. Or maybe it was just the Democratic Senators. I know they were trying to sound aggressive and forceful, but mostly they sounded rude; interrupting him at every opportunity and not letting him finish his sentences. Fire up the base seems to have been the order of the day.
it’s too bad we couldn’t have injected some memory-enhancing truth serum into him.
Give it to Trump so he can remember all the times he vilified Clinton for her memory.
And all the times he couldn’t remember during the Trump U. depositions.
It bothered me a lot; like he wanted to have it cake and eat it too. To note have executive privilege invoked, and yet still not answer any questions. Very troubling. Also “I don’t recall” a lot.
I thought that for a little at first (and occasionally later), but they had a really good reason. They were under a time limit (each only had a few minutes). He gave two paragraph answers, often not actually answering the question and talking on not-really-related things. Even when he was told “yes or no answer” with a “to your knowledge” question (meaning “no” means “not that I know of” instead of "impossible), he still did not just answer “yes” or “no” - on several occasions it seemed like he was very much trying to “run down the clock” and make sure they didn’t have time to ask all their questions. And he interrupted the questioner a few times, too.
I thought Rubio and Harris did okay. McCain better than expected. Wyden and Cotton were not good. King and Henrich were really good.
I’m going to spend the next week or so just doing my thing and remembering things and feeling really proud of myself. Thanks, Sessions, for my newfound pride!
The guy has a law degree, right? And you expect him to answer in “yes or no”? Those guys spend beaucoup bucks to learn best how NOT to do that.
You’d think it wouldn’t seem so obvious. Can’t recall, my ass.
ETA It was as subtle as Chappelle pleading the Fifth:
Comey answered simply yes or no plenty of times. The difference? He had nothing to hide.
You are, no doubt, correct. But just to be clear, I was speaking about the general case and did not to mean that to be a blanket statement. Just that it should be no real surprise. To rephrase: Lawyer dodges “yes or no” question. News at 11.
Aye but what bothered me most, as I said, was his method of dodging. As you say, I didn’t expect him to answer every question. But his given reason for not answering was terrible, IMO and I did think that Sen. King especially demolished it.
Completely expected outcome, a big nothing burger. The Committee let Stonewall Sessions get away with asserting his phantom privilege. Risch did everything he could to smooth the way for him, and Lankford, Cotton, and Cornyn sounded like his criminal defense team, with Cotton going full-Monty partisan. Cornyn only went into the reasons for Comey’s firing, completely ignoring that the issue was Sessions’ involvement in the decision, not the reasons for it.
Meanwhile, of course, all the Trump mouthpieces are proclaiming victory, how great and above reproach Sessions is, how the whole thing is a fabrication, blah blah blah. Seems I saw something entirely different. We learned nothing new whatsoever, with the minor exception of corroborating some of Comey’s testimony.
I find it interesting that Sessions got all righteously indignant, though. That’s usually a pretty solid indicator of guilt.
Sessions has always struck me as an odd duck. He has a comically evil face and is constantly looking as though he is half-heartedly attempting to conceal the outright glee he feels at the prospect of lying on camera.
Sort of like Cotton’s hyperbolic diatribe, followed by focusing on distracting with leaks, ffs! You could quite easily have cut out his entire five minutes and missed absolutely nothing. But hey, I’m sure it played well with Trump’s Deliverance-character base.
No, that wasn’t politically driven in any way. It’s just so ridiculous!
Give me a break.
I’m not sure I saw portions of the same testimony that all the posters who say he did well saw. His explanation for being involved in Comey’s firing despite recusing himself from all matters involving the Russia investigation made no sense, given that arguably the biggest investigation in progress on Comey’s plate was the Russia investigation.
Sessions also invented another patently absurd justification for firing Comey in that he completely disagreed with Comey’s recommendation not to prosecute Hillary. If that or anything resembling that was the actual reason, Comey would have been fired in January. Nevermind, of course, that Trump already confessed that he made up his mind to fire Comey before Sessons or Rosenstein’s memo.
And Sessions confirmed one of the more subtlely damning parts of Comey’s testimony - that Trump never asked about and never expressed any concern about any Russian hacking or interference in the election and that Sessions is similarly unconcerned.
Got a couple of questions, don’t know how to resolve, and I hate that neural itch. Maybe the best way to get a fact is to post something wrong on the internet. Second quickest is to admit ignorance amongst a band of devoted smart-asses.
Numero uno. Am I right when I think that Trump has not ever publicly accepted that the Russian incursion ever even happened? That he stubbornly refuses to accept that any investigation is warranted? I have the thought that Sessions can safely deny any such discussions under those circumstances. Sorta kinda, if you can believe that those two never passed a word to each other about this. I would expect any remotely responsible Prez to at least openly review his opinions and his evidence, because being wrong has…consequences.
So, is that it, then? Sessions and Trump never discussed Russia interference because Trump doesn’t think it ever happened? And Sessions just shrugs and moves on the more crucial question of prosecuting weed? Da fuq?
This is a case in which the Trump administration used the opponent’s aggression against him and deflected it. This administration might seem to be on the ropes, but their aim isn’t necessarily exoneration outright. Authoritarian regimes don’t need formal judgments of innocence. They don’t even need a majority to support them. They just need a majority to not care enough to stop them. They just want the American public gets fatigued enough to not care about whatever Trump will do next. Obviously, a majority didn’t care about his grabbing women’s pussies. It’s not at all clear that a majority cares enough about Russia’s hacks on our election to see an investigation through to the end. It’s clear that a majority cares about Trump’s financial entanglements, or his attacks on the press, or his many outrages. Sure, if you ask them in polls, a majority might say they don’t like what he’s doing. But are a majority actually going to get out and vote against him? Are they going to protest or contact their representatives in congress? Not at all clear. Most authoritarian regimes start off with consent. Not majority consent, though. Just enough apathy and indifference to signal that they can continue to do whatever it is that they want to do.
And that’s all that they wanted to achieve: nothing new here, folks, just move on. They’re trying to wear us out. It’s brave people like James Comey and Preet Bharara who are defending the constitution right now, not the congress.
…or as The Keebler Elf says… “Oh Fudge”.