There’s no excuse for just thinking with zero basis that someone is talking about Clinton and then just asserting that as fact. (As it happens, I was talking about Claire McCaskill.)
Beyond that, BigT himself made a point in that very post of distinguishing between the job of a Senator and the job held by Clinton (in that the latter meets more people) so he wouldn’t have been assuming that my reference to a “senator” was a reference to Clinton.
Further, I did not claim I “did not think [she] forgot”. Actually the exact opposite is true - the point I was making was that (as originally stated in post #81) that it’s the nature of politics that you meet an enormous number of people and can’t remember much of it. The McCaskill incident is a dramatic illustration of that.
In sum, it would take an enormous level of addle-headed stupidity out of BigT for him to have come up with that. But perhaps he can comment himself.
I don’t think you meant to insult BigT, but this can be read that way. Please do not use this type of comparison where it appears you are insulting another poster.
Understood. But my point was that it’s not all clear that BigT thought my reference to a senator was Clinton as you suggest, considering the extent to which such a misunderstanding would make no sense.
all I saw watching the parts I did (and reading about parts I didn’t) was a politician doing his absolute best to not be caught in a lie - or the truth.
The problem he has is that he misspoke in his confirmation hearing and was accused of lying on that basis. So now he needs to be extra-careful that he doesn’t say anything definitive about all sorts of things that he’s only 99% sure of (did you speak to any Russians at such-and-such event? did you ever hear anything about Jarred Kushner speaking to any Russians? and so on)
He also needs to invoke the special secret executive privilege clause, which is NOT actually executive privilege, but means you don’t have to say anything just in case someone hypothetically exerts executive privilege at some future hypothetical time.
It’s like how you can rob a store, but it’s OK, because it might be legal to rob a store in the year 2020.
Well, Sessions is off the front page today, eclipsed by the Alexandria shooting. The news is like a batting practice machine (as it were) gone haywire, just pitching one huge story every few minutes.
It may be entirely true that Sessions didn’t remember or recall these matters. Possibly because he’s a senile old fart who can’t remember what he had for breakfast but more likely because he’s intentionally not remembering or recalling the events and he means “I’m not remembering or recalling that right now because I don’t want to tell the truth and implicate myself”. But we all know that really he’s just lying.
Well FTR, from everything I’ve seen of Sessions, both before and including his involvement with the Trump administration, my impression is that his integrity is about as high as that of anyone I’ve seen in public office. I’ve not seen the slightest shred of evidence that he’s lied about anything, ever.
Further, ISTM that the basis for this overwhelming (on this MB and similar circles) sentiment otherwise is completely circular. You decide upfront that you dislike Sessions, then on that basis you interpret everything he says or does in the absolute worst possible manner, which then adds to the growing pile of “evidence” that he’s a liar or worse. But there’s zero objective evidence of anything of the sort.
So you honestly believe his memory is so bad that he doesn’t remember anything at all about multiple meetings, incidents, people, etc? And that he should continue having a job even though he apparently has a five-standard-deviations low ability to remember things?
