Goodbye Sessions lol. How far does this go?

[12icer]

For those who missed the doddering old man's presser, here is a paraphrasing of his statements:

"I was dazzled and confuddlebobbulated by Senator Franken's question."

"I forgot I met with the Russian guy twice, but I can tell you he was a real old time Soviet bastard."

"I can't member what me and the Russian talked about."

"Does anyone know where my Aricept is?"

See above post, lies are easily thrown out, so you wasted a post.

 

[beagle9]

Jeff Sessions should get an Emmy for his TV performance today. He played a spot-on old man with early onset Alzheimer's.

. I thought you hypocrites didn't make fun of people with disabilities ?? Don't ever accuse Trump again hypocrite..

 

[Pop23]

You're thinking too hard.

Franken never asked Sessions if he met with Russians.

Absolutely true. But Sessions decided to answer Franken by denying he met with the Russians, and he said that under oath. oops...

Franken asked that:

If the rumored dossier exists, and you found that the trump campaign had contacts with the Russians, what would you do?

HIs answer clearly was:

"I can't answer that"

Any attorney knows they can't answer a hypothetical question.

It's really that easy.

If only Sessions stopped there. Instead he expanded on his answer.

Any good lawyer advises his client to just answer the question, and not volunteer any extra information.

You would have a point if the question that Franken oddly tried to frame was about the Senate and its workings and not about trump campaign representatives.

Pity, it did not.

Without it as a basis, Sessions is free to offer any information he wishes, and framed as it was, he offered it as being called a Surrogate a time or two.

Franken, in his brilliance, then had the chance to ask for clarification.

He did not.

Therefor, there is no basis for the claim that the answer given is not actionable.

 

[beagle9]

You're thinking too hard.

Franken never asked Sessions if he met with Russians.

Absolutely true. But Sessions decided to answer Franken by denying he met with the Russians, and he said that under oath. oops...

Franken asked that:

If the rumored dossier exists, and you found that the trump campaign had contacts with the Russians, what would you do?

HIs answer clearly was:

"I can't answer that"

Any attorney knows they can't answer a hypothetical question.

It's really that easy.

If only Sessions stopped there. Instead he expanded on his answer.

Any good lawyer advises his client to just answer the question, and not volunteer any extra information.

. The question if a judge would have been present would have been denide of Franken to ask based upon speculation, yet even so Sessions answered it correctly.

And Franken had every right to ask a clarifying question. He did not. Without it, any perjury case is without a basis.

. A clarifying question based on speculation ? Was he trying to clarify a speculation in which he should have had facts to back up ?

 

[12icer]

Sessions Is the Atty Gen, and will be for the next eight or sixteen years.

 

[Pop23]

You're thinking too hard.

Franken never asked Sessions if he met with Russians.

Absolutely true. But Sessions decided to answer Franken by denying he met with the Russians, and he said that under oath. oops...

Franken asked that:

If the rumored dossier exists, and you found that the trump campaign had contacts with the Russians, what would you do?

HIs answer clearly was:

"I can't answer that"

Any attorney knows they can't answer a hypothetical question.

It's really that easy.

If only Sessions stopped there. Instead he expanded on his answer.

Any good lawyer advises his client to just answer the question, and not volunteer any extra information.

. The question if a judge would have been present would have been denide of Franken to ask based upon speculation, yet even so Sessions answered it correctly.

And Franken had every right to ask a clarifying question. He did not. Without it, any perjury case is without a basis.

. A clarifying question based on speculation ? Was he trying to clarify a speculation in which he should have had facts to back up ?

It was Frankens right as the questioner.

If he had asked "Are you saying you never met the Russians as a surrogate, in your role as Senator, or both?" If Sessions then answered he had not met the Russians in any capacity, then there would be something.

But no clarification was sought. So it ends there.

 

[Pop23]

You're thinking too hard.

Franken never asked Sessions if he met with Russians.

Absolutely true. But Sessions decided to answer Franken by denying he met with the Russians, and he said that under oath. oops...

Franken asked that:

If the rumored dossier exists, and you found that the trump campaign had contacts with the Russians, what would you do?

HIs answer clearly was:

"I can't answer that"

Any attorney knows they can't answer a hypothetical question.

It's really that easy.

If only Sessions stopped there. Instead he expanded on his answer.

Any good lawyer advises his client to just answer the question, and not volunteer any extra information.

. The question if a judge would have been present would have been denide of Franken to ask based upon speculation, yet even so Sessions answered it correctly.

And Franken had every right to ask a clarifying question. He did not. Without it, any perjury case is without a basis.

. A clarifying question based on speculation ? Was he trying to clarify a speculation in which he should have had facts to back up ?

I see why you asked. I fixed my post. The answer given was NOT actionable.

 

[Slade3200]

You're thinking too hard.

Franken never asked Sessions if he met with Russians.

Absolutely true. But Sessions decided to answer Franken by denying he met with the Russians, and he said that under oath. oops...

Franken asked that:

If the rumored dossier exists, and you found that the trump campaign had contacts with the Russians, what would you do?

HIs answer clearly was:

"I can't answer that"

Any attorney knows they can't answer a hypothetical question.

It's really that easy.

If only Sessions stopped there. Instead he expanded on his answer.

Any good lawyer advises his client to just answer the question, and not volunteer any extra information.

You would have a point if the question that Franken oddly tried to frame was about the Senate and its workings and not about trump campaign representatives.

Pity, it did not.

Without it as a basis, Sessions is free to offer any information he wishes, and framed as it was, he offered it as being called a Surrogate a time or two.

Franken, in his brilliance, then had the chance to ask for clarification.

He did not.

Therefor, there is no basis for the claim that the answer given is not actionable.

What was Frankens question? Give me your short interpretation of it and then sessions answer. I'm curious how you heard it

 

[Pop23]

You're thinking too hard.

Franken never asked Sessions if he met with Russians.

Absolutely true. But Sessions decided to answer Franken by denying he met with the Russians, and he said that under oath. oops...

Franken asked that:

If the rumored dossier exists, and you found that the trump campaign had contacts with the Russians, what would you do?

HIs answer clearly was:

"I can't answer that"

Any attorney knows they can't answer a hypothetical question.

It's really that easy.

If only Sessions stopped there. Instead he expanded on his answer.

Any good lawyer advises his client to just answer the question, and not volunteer any extra information.

You would have a point if the question that Franken oddly tried to frame was about the Senate and its workings and not about trump campaign representatives.

Pity, it did not.

Without it as a basis, Sessions is free to offer any information he wishes, and framed as it was, he offered it as being called a Surrogate a time or two.

Franken, in his brilliance, then had the chance to ask for clarification.

He did not.

Therefor, there is no basis for the claim that the answer given is not actionable.

What was Frankens question? Give me your short interpretation of it and then sessions answer. I'm curious how you heard it

It's in my above quote.

Frankens question was "what will you do?"

It was actually grammatically incorrect. It should have been, "what would you do?" But that's quibbling. Since it was hypothetical, the question should be phrased as such.

 

[beagle9]

Soon to come by means of the Democrats desperation in the world yet again ? The world rejects liberalism again ?? No more wars people.. Enough already.

 

[oreo]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjWk8TurrfSAhVm2oMKHRPIBeQQqUMILTAB&url=http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39136118&usg=AFQjCNFLlc1JH_9odTOHYfNrlvXVVeVntA&sig2=_bSM0Ut2OcG9t6eVXQLFIQ

and others, Dutch say. Well, T does like to get pissed...

Well it does go deeeep. Prior to getting confirmed he also filled out a form that specifically asked if he had any contact with the Russians. His answer was NO and he signed it.

 

[Slade3200]

You're thinking too hard.

Franken never asked Sessions if he met with Russians.

Absolutely true. But Sessions decided to answer Franken by denying he met with the Russians, and he said that under oath. oops...

Franken asked that:

If the rumored dossier exists, and you found that the trump campaign had contacts with the Russians, what would you do?

HIs answer clearly was:

"I can't answer that"

Any attorney knows they can't answer a hypothetical question.

It's really that easy.

If only Sessions stopped there. Instead he expanded on his answer.

Any good lawyer advises his client to just answer the question, and not volunteer any extra information.

You would have a point if the question that Franken oddly tried to frame was about the Senate and its workings and not about trump campaign representatives.

Pity, it did not.

Without it as a basis, Sessions is free to offer any information he wishes, and framed as it was, he offered it as being called a Surrogate a time or two.

Franken, in his brilliance, then had the chance to ask for clarification.

He did not.

Therefor, there is no basis for the claim that the answer given is not actionable.

What was Frankens question? Give me your short interpretation of it and then sessions answer. I'm curious how you heard it

It's in my above quote.

Frankens question was "what will you do?"

It was actually grammatically incorrect. It should have been, "what would you do?" But that's quibbling. Since it was hypothetical, the question should be phrased as such.

So how did a " what will you do" question get a " I've been called a surrogate and I haven't had any communications with the Russians" answer?

I think he deflected and pivoted right into a brick wall

 

[Marshal]

Being called a surrogate doesn't mean he is one. He answered Franken's question based on a bogus dossier.

 

[bripat9643]

They have accused the Russians of hacking the election, and therefore robbing Hillary's chances of winning in which was a lie. This made the Russians toxic to anyone talking to them in the regular context of normal business, and if anyone so much as communicated with them, then they must be guilty of something or even guilty of a crime. If Obama accused the Russians of something they didnot do (hack or influence) the election, and has caused all of this trouble, then he should be brought up on charges. The Demon-crats used the word INFLUENCE because they know that such a word would be broad in scope, and in interpretation.. They (the Dem accusers for political purposes), figure by way of such a word that it would be impossible for them to be accused of a crime by way of this word used if it all backfired on them. They are carefully choosing such words in so that they can get away with what they are up to, and yet escape justice if their game is figured out. Watch the words they use, and then think about what is going on here.

That's it true. There is clear evidence that the Russians interfered with our election. There are plenty, even on the Right, that want it investigated, not because they think it changed the results of the election but because it's important to know exactly to what extent they interfered to provide an appropriate response.

Yes many in the left are completely politicizing the Russia situation to deligitimize Trump, but that doesn't take away from the reality of the situation.

No such evidence has been presented. All we have are a bunch of anonymous sources.

 

[g5000]

Jeff Sessions should get an Emmy for his TV performance today. He played a spot-on old man with early onset Alzheimer's.

. I thought you hypocrites didn't make fun of people with disabilities ?? Don't ever accuse Trump again hypocrite..

What the hell are you talking about? I make fun of you retards on a daily basis!

 

[bripat9643]

They did not ask him if he talked to the Russians about meddling in the elections. They just asked him if he, as a member of Trump's campaign, had talked to the Russians. He had talked to the Russians while he was a member of the Trump campaign, yet he said no. It's pretty cut and dry. If he didn't talk to the Ambassador of Russia about Trump's campaign, all he had to have done was say that he had talked to the Russians, but that it had nothing to do with Trump. Sessions as a lawyer and a judge, would know this very clearly... that his answers are indeed a lie, despite how some want to read into them. His types of answers is the same type of answers that get regular citizens thrown in jail with a guilty verdict in a court of law.

. So the questions were misleading, and they were carefully worded in order to set the AG up ?? Yes they were, and your post here confirms it. Now what penalties are there for intentionally misleading the Attorney General Jeff Sessions with an attempt to set him up in this way ? Franken should be investigated to see if there was any collusion between him and any of his colleagues in trying to set the AG up in this way. You people are getting caught in your own traps.

Think you got that backwards sir... It can be a crime to lie or intentionally mislead congress with testimony. There was nothing tricky about Franken's question, he asked what Sessions would do if there was evidence of Trump surrogates communicating with Russians. Sessions decided not to answer the question and volunteered the statement calling himself a surrogate and falsely proclaiming that he had no communication with the Russians. He could have easily said that he had meetings as a Senator but not as a surrogate but he didn't... Could have been a simple brain fart or it could have been an intentional deception. Flynn has already been fired over similar circumstances so this is a big deal.

For Sessions it could be a big misunderstanding and if so then thats fine. But he has said multiple times that he didn't communicate with the Russians and now there is evidence to the contrary so he is either mistaken, lying, or not being completely forthcoming. Either way, it is a fair discussion to have and worth investigating. He did the right thing by recusing himself from the investigation. I think thats as far as its going to go.

. Any question posed by Franken was carefully thought out, and was designed to trip Sessions up I believe (Franken not being genuine), and it was to make him "Senator Jeff Sessions" after taking the bait to appear exactly in the ways that you have now taken the bait on also. It didn't work though, because just as your brain is telling you also in this reply, that something isn't right, and you are inclined to believe Sessions in the situation it seems to me. Franken I believe, is or thinks he is a master of deceptive practices in his speak, and he has since perfected this art in his celebrity career where as fooling people is key, and then making them laugh about it afterwards is evil... He (Franken) figured his act could be applied greatly in politics, and he may have been right.

Your getting a little too far off the tracks here. Frankens question was clearly geared to get Sessions on the record stating what he would do if evidence was presented showing communication between the Trump campaign and Russia. Not that tricky. If you listen closely you'll hear sessions avoiding answering the question and volunteering the personal statements of misinformation that got him in this mess. Your finger point at Franken is misguided

. Your opinion, but I listened to the way Franken delivered the questions with his snake charming way.

You give Franken too much credit. He's a dumbass. However, he may have known about Sessions have a couple of run-ins with the Russian ambassador prior to asking the question. Obama probably filled the Dims in on that score.

 

[Slade3200]

They have accused the Russians of hacking the election, and therefore robbing Hillary's chances of winning in which was a lie. This made the Russians toxic to anyone talking to them in the regular context of normal business, and if anyone so much as communicated with them, then they must be guilty of something or even guilty of a crime. If Obama accused the Russians of something they didnot do (hack or influence) the election, and has caused all of this trouble, then he should be brought up on charges. The Demon-crats used the word INFLUENCE because they know that such a word would be broad in scope, and in interpretation.. They (the Dem accusers for political purposes), figure by way of such a word that it would be impossible for them to be accused of a crime by way of this word used if it all backfired on them. They are carefully choosing such words in so that they can get away with what they are up to, and yet escape justice if their game is figured out. Watch the words they use, and then think about what is going on here.

That's it true. There is clear evidence that the Russians interfered with our election. There are plenty, even on the Right, that want it investigated, not because they think it changed the results of the election but because it's important to know exactly to what extent they interfered to provide an appropriate response.

Yes many in the left are completely politicizing the Russia situation to deligitimize Trump, but that doesn't take away from the reality of the situation.

No such evidence has been presented. All we have are a bunch of anonymous sources.

No information has presented about what?

 

[bripat9643]

Sessions admitted to being a Trump adviser, but not a surrogate.

Think you got that backwards... Sessions alluded to saying he was a surrogate in his statement. Didn't say it directly but he said that he had been called a surrogate and he hadn't had communications with Russia.

Session admitted being called a Trump surrogate, but never admitted being a Trump surrogate. It may have been denial, but it meant Sessions never considered himself to be a Trump surrogate, and therefore wouldn't answer questions based on him being something he was in denial of.

Picture Trump saying he was speaking for the narcissistic megalomaniacs.

Dude, listen to it again, it's plain English. "I've been called a surrogate once or twice and I've had no communications with Russia." That isn't denying that he is a surrogate it is conceeding that he is.

No it isn't. Plenty of people in here have called me stupid and countless other names. That doesn't mean I agree with them.

 

[bripat9643]

They have accused the Russians of hacking the election, and therefore robbing Hillary's chances of winning in which was a lie. This made the Russians toxic to anyone talking to them in the regular context of normal business, and if anyone so much as communicated with them, then they must be guilty of something or even guilty of a crime. If Obama accused the Russians of something they didnot do (hack or influence) the election, and has caused all of this trouble, then he should be brought up on charges. The Demon-crats used the word INFLUENCE because they know that such a word would be broad in scope, and in interpretation.. They (the Dem accusers for political purposes), figure by way of such a word that it would be impossible for them to be accused of a crime by way of this word used if it all backfired on them. They are carefully choosing such words in so that they can get away with what they are up to, and yet escape justice if their game is figured out. Watch the words they use, and then think about what is going on here.

That's it true. There is clear evidence that the Russians interfered with our election. There are plenty, even on the Right, that want it investigated, not because they think it changed the results of the election but because it's important to know exactly to what extent they interfered to provide an appropriate response.

Yes many in the left are completely politicizing the Russia situation to deligitimize Trump, but that doesn't take away from the reality of the situation.

No such evidence has been presented. All we have are a bunch of anonymous sources.

No information has presented about what?

No evidence has been presented that Russia interfered with our election.

 

[beagle9]

Jeff Sessions should get an Emmy for his TV performance today. He played a spot-on old man with early onset Alzheimer's.

. I thought you hypocrites didn't make fun of people with disabilities ?? Don't ever accuse Trump again hypocrite..

What the hell are you talking about? I make fun of you retards on a daily basis!

Right back at cha retard. lol