Maybe Trump thinks if his cabinet members keep resigning, there won’t be enough of them to ever invoke the 25th on him.
I wonder what his Italian Mob friends think of him cozying up to the Russians like that.
Trump doesn’t seem too bright; maybe he’s trying to find out what happened to the one that got away from Pauley and Christopher all those years ago.
It just keeps getting better and better.
So he was speaking to the Russian ambassador *strictly in his role as senator, * but he paid for the trip from campaign funds.
But not to worry folks! It’s all good because he’s a Republican. Therefore, nothing was improper.
It should be pointed out that the RNC convention in Cleveland, that Sessions admitted to, is not the meeting referred to here. Trump has no buildings in Cleveland, so far as I can tell, and the RNC convention was in July.
Most likely, this would have been when Trump visited DC on March 21 to “check in on the Old Post Office”.
Sorry if it’s already been mentioned (Damn, all these Trump threads move fast!), but we can add Carter Page to the list of Trump cronies who have suddenly remembered that they did, in fact, meet with Kislyak.
After denying in February that he had met the Ambassador, Page admitted on Thursday that he had met with him in Cleveland. At this hour it is still unclear whether the meeting involved a Cleveland Steamer or merely a golden shower.
Anyway, it’s not as bad as it sounds. Page did point out:
[Quote=Carter Page]
I will say I never met him anywhere outside of Cleveland. Let’s just say that much.
[/quote]
Oh good! What happens in Cleveland stays in Cleveland. So we’re good then.
So…
It’s very hard, if not impossible to charge Sessions with any crime, according to the NY times:
But now we hear that "Mr. Sessions paid for convention travel expenses out of his own political funds and he spoke about Donald Trump’s campaign at the event, according to a person at the event and campaign-finance records. "
So where does this leave us? Sessions defense seems to be that he was speaking as a senator. But now it seems that we have evidence that he was not. Is he still clean as a whistle, prosecution-wise?
He’s still a Republican, so …
I don’t care about charging him with a crime, I don’t crave the satisfaction of seeing him shipped off to a Club Fed. I don’t need to punish him for being a morally malignant asshole. I need to see his grubby mitts pried off the levers of power, what becomes of him after that is a triviality.
I wonder if one of those people was Ivanka, 'cos I hear she’s good at getting people to do the right thing…
Trey “Benghazi” Gowdy says the Sessions-Kislyak contacts should have never become public, the real problem is the leaks, and that Congress isn’t equipped to investigate a matter such as this.
What if the guy he killed was also named Nathan Yablonski (only they haven’t found his body yet)? 
Ridiculous. That event left Sessions too devastated by grief to meet with anyone.
“Earl” ? Ew, how banal.
For that true 19th-century “S’uthun” flavour, his middle name should be Eleuthereus.
Ironically, his very sliminess supports the “as I understood it” defense:
[QUOTE=George Orwell]
His mind slid away into the labyrinthine world of doublethink. To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word ‘doublethink’ involved the use of doublethink.
[/QUOTE]
This may have been pointed out already as I didn’t take the time to read every post in this thread.
Sessions’ lie or whatever you want to call it was completely unnecessary. Franken asked him what he would do IF someone in the campaign had contact with the Russians. Sessions basically said, “No comment” after answering a question that wasn’t asked. As is so common with politicians in general and this administration in particular, he simply dodged the question. This is so common that it has become acceptable. I don’t know if refusal to answer a hypothetical is a valid response in these types of hearings or not but Franken didn’t press him on it when he had the chance. In my experience as a criminal investigator, when someone offers up denials in response to a question where no accusation has been made, something is wrong.
Also, as a former prosecutor, Sessions has to know the importance of answering questions as asked. When under oath the answers need to be thoughtful and considered. Its testimony 101. To say “I answered the question I thought he asked” or similar is disingenuous.
Maybe it’s expecting too much to expect a factual answer in the Pit, but does anyone know who (one or more people) gets to make a decision to prosecute (or not) cases of perjury before Congress?
I’ve got another smoking gun. Sessions has said that he was wearing his Armed Services Committee hat when he had the meetings with the Russian ambassador.
Well, I checked – there’s no such thing!!!
It seems to be very rare - six convictions since the fifties: What happens if you lie to Congress
http://www.wplucey.com/2010/08/convictions-for-lying-to-congress-few-and-far-between.html
It looks like federal prosecutors make the call …