He was trying to waste time the whole hearing. His “qualifiers” were mostly irrelevant. He would answer Harris’ questions just fine and she was ready to move on and he’d bring up some other unrelated bullshit to draw it out.
In the most heated exchange, she asked about the specific DOJ policy he was citing for not answering questions. He started to go on a tangent about how other cabinet officials testified. She interrupted and again asked about the specific policy and whether it was in writing. He said he thought so. She asked if he had not reviewed it before testifying. He started to tell her the principle the policy was based on. She interrupted and said she wasn’t interested in the principle. He clammed up and refused to answer, people intervened, he finally went on and on about the principle and her time was up.
It was clear that she was basically wanting him to cite the exact policy so she could get a copy of it and it was equally clear that he was trying not to give that to her.
Just catching up with this story now. What I got so far is that Sessions said he didn’t do anything wrong at the meetings he didn’t remember going to. Anything else happen?
Who knows what they actually talk about. What I have heard Trump say is variations on the “it could be a fat guy on a bed” routine. When confronted with evidence (and presumably he sees more than we do), he stubbornly insists that “we don’t know,” it could be anyone, and the Democrats have manufactured the panic about this. It’s “fake news”.
It’s not exactly the same as directly saying we do not need an investigation, but it sure dances around the edges. It is odd and concerning to learn from these hearings that Trump is directing no efforts whatsoever towards preventing future intrusions of this kind.
Very good points. and does not bode well for our society.
When I was much younger, a more experience lawyer told me, “If the judge asks you a yes or no question, the first word out of your mouth had better be yes or no, followed by whatever else you want to say.” I thought that good advice.
Now, as a judge, there is little that bothers me more than someone refusing to answer a direct question. They can conduct themselves however they wish. I can decide against them and their client.
But you also claimed you did not think Clinton forgot. So if that’s your argument, that Sessions didn’t forget, but is playing political games, then I agree with you. It isn’t atypical, and it probably won’t hurt him.
If you’re trying to argue that Sessions actually forgot, then that is farfetched. At least Clinton could have forgotten, due to actually having a job where she meets a lot of foreign people (Though I, like you, doubt it. It’s a politician’s dodge. I’m surprised they don’t teach it for testimony in court.) But Sessions is a senator, and has talked about these things before. It’s unlikely he’s suddenly forgotten now.
Plus, he recused himself, which was basically shouting to the world that he is connected to Russia. That’s water under the bridge. And, if he remembered then, he remembers now.
That’s just how memory works. You either forget something right away, because it didn’t make it to long term memory, or it takes a while for it to go away. And since the subject of Russia is something constantly on his mind, it will not have gone away.
Yeah, just wait until they subpoena his ass and threaten him with contempt of Congress. No matter how much you and your ilk want it, this ain’t going away.
Nice join date, btw. What, 30 seconds ago?
Wait…you’re missing Breitbart’s latest Hillary Clinton conspiracy theory! Go get it!
Somebody should do an environmental inspection of the AG’s office - there seems to be something about the air in there that brings on sudden boutsof memory loss.
I was fascinated by Sessions’ new theory of Double Secret Executive Privilege, or whatever non-executive-privilege privilege he was trying to invoke so that he could avoid answering questions.
This is pretty much what Trumpists across the land are saying.
Everyone should get used to it. The Trumpist line on yesterday’s hearing was basically that Sessions’s answers were brilliant, his memory perfect, his wit sharp and all concerns about the Russian ties are completely and totally put to rest. If you watched and don’t recall any of that, and instead recall a stammering, nervous man who inexplicably refused to answer many questions and really only did well when being propped up by a friendly Republican senator, well, FAKE NEWS.
Truth is no longer even an issue. Trump is perfect, no Russian ties, greatest President ever.
Trust me; there is no lie too big. I assure everyone that if the Great Wall of Mexico is never built, which of course it won’t be, in a couple of years Trump will simply say it was built, and his supporters will say the Wall exists, and it’s the greatest wall. And you can show them pictures of the Mexican border where there is no wall, and they’l say FAKE NEWS!
Actually, the most heated exchange was when he was trying to qualify his response to her question about whether he might have met Russians at the convention, and he was beginning to note that “A lot of people were at the convention, it’s conceivable -” when she cut him off. That qualification fundamentally affected his response. She wasn’t interested.
As to the exchange you note, I don’t think it’s obvious at all that his intention was as you state. IMO it’s far more likely that he was simply trying to put his approach in perspective. He had not consulted a written guideline (when she asked if existed in written form he said “I think so”) but he believed it was based on a widely accepted principle and was SOP for cabinet officials testifying in congress, and his response was to make that point. That’s relevant, IMO.
I don’t recall ever making any claims about whether Clinton forgot anything and have no idea what you’re talking about.
Of course, I’ve made a lot of claims over my time here, and it’s conceivable that I might have once made such a claim and just don’t remember it. But to the best of my memory now, I can’t recall it.
So in the event that your claim is based on some sort of fact, it might be a good idea if you cite to it.
I think he is thinking that when you were talking about the senator that forgot about russian meetings, you were talking about clinton, rather than whoever that other senator was that you were actually talking about.
The one that tweeted that she hadn’t had private meetings with russians.
The Trump administration (with the help of sympathetic surrogates in congress and around the country) is essentially engaging in information warfare against his own country. The lying has strategic value. Tell an outrageous lie, force the opposition to react to it, and while they’re busy sorting out the facts from one lie, tell yet another outrageous lie, or simply say something outrageous that critics are forced to respond to with emotion. It’s like something out of a Napoleonic warfare manual, except that the objective in this case is strategic disruption so as to make any sort of opposing consensus and resistance difficult.
Claire McCaskill, who claimed “No call or meeting w/Russian ambassador. Ever” in a tweet. While in 2013 she tweeted "“Off to meeting w/Russian Ambassador. Upset about the arbitrary/cruel decision to end all US adoptions, even those in process” and there are pictures of the meeting.
And in 2015 she tweeted: "“Today calls with British, Russian, and German Ambassadors re: Iran deal. #doingmyhomework.”.
