Jaws Drop As Jeff Sessions All But Admits That Trump Obstructed Justice

[mudwhistle]

If he is going to use executive privilege in a simple yes or no question then he is acting guilty.

If you ask a question knowing you won't get an answer then using that to assume guilt, you're guilty of being a liar.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If he is going to use executive privilege in a simple yes or no question then he is acting guilty.

If you ask a question knowing you won't get an answer then using that to assume guilt, you're guilty of being a liar.

What do you mean, "knowing you won't get an answer"?

 

[mudwhistle]

If he is going to use executive privilege in a simple yes or no question then he is acting guilty.

If you ask a question knowing you won't get an answer then using that to assume guilt, you're guilty of being a liar.

What do you mean, "knowing you won't get an answer"?

I don't feel like explaining the obvious to retards.

 

[nat4900]

If he is going to use executive privilege in a simple yes or no question then he is acting guilty.

If you ask a question knowing you won't get an answer then using that to assume guilt, you're guilty of being a liar.

Actually, the term you're searching for is a "rhetorical question"........and the inability to answer such a question is a method for prosecutors to garner a tacit "YES."

Sessions, with his NON-answer," was just trying not to be caught in a perjury trap.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If he is going to use executive privilege in a simple yes or no question then he is acting guilty.

If you ask a question knowing you won't get an answer then using that to assume guilt, you're guilty of being a liar.

What do you mean, "knowing you won't get an answer"?

I don't feel like explaining the obvious to retards.

Are you saying you somehow knew the answer wasn't "no"? Oops, kind of admitted something there, didn't you? Yeah, you did.

 

[Oldstyle]

Jaws Drop As Jeff Sessions All But Admits That Trump Obstructed Justice
By Jason Easley at Politicus USA

Jaws Drop As Jeff Sessions All But Admits That Trump Obstructed Justice

"SNIP..........

When asked by the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) if Trump ever directed him to hinder the Russia investigation, Attorney General Jeff Sessions refused to answer the question.

Manu Raju of CNN reported:


Manu Raju
✔
@mkraju
Schiff says he asked Sessions directly if Trump ever directed him to "hinder" the Russia investigation. He declined to answer, citing private conversations with Trump
1:07 PM - Nov 30, 2017
401 401 Replies 2,296 2,296 Retweets 3,708 3,708 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Schiff’s question is easy to answer if the answer is no. The only reason for Attorney General Session to decline to answer is that any answer that he could provide would damage Trump. Anyone who has watched Jeff Sessions testify since he became Attorney General knows that the refusal to answer due to the privacy of the conversation is one of his favorite go-to moves when he is trying to avoid providing damaging information to the Russia investigation.

If the answer was no, all Sessions had to do was say no, and it would help boost the President’s claims that he did not obstruct justice. The Attorney General’s refusal to answer was an answer itself. There have been media reports for months that Trump wanted to fire Sessions because he wouldn’t interfere and make the Russia investigation go away.

.........SNIP"

Traitors all.

Sessions is refusing to answer the question not because Trump did anything wrong but because conversations between a sitting President and his advisors are protected. Sessions has been consistent in his refusals to answer any questions for THAT reason...not because he's hiding something...something that Jason Easley from Politicus should understand...but then again...he's writing for Politicus and therefore he's writing propaganda...not writing fact based journalism!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Jaws Drop As Jeff Sessions All But Admits That Trump Obstructed Justice
By Jason Easley at Politicus USA

Jaws Drop As Jeff Sessions All But Admits That Trump Obstructed Justice

"SNIP..........

When asked by the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) if Trump ever directed him to hinder the Russia investigation, Attorney General Jeff Sessions refused to answer the question.

Manu Raju of CNN reported:


Manu Raju
✔
@mkraju
Schiff says he asked Sessions directly if Trump ever directed him to "hinder" the Russia investigation. He declined to answer, citing private conversations with Trump
1:07 PM - Nov 30, 2017
401 401 Replies 2,296 2,296 Retweets 3,708 3,708 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Schiff’s question is easy to answer if the answer is no. The only reason for Attorney General Session to decline to answer is that any answer that he could provide would damage Trump. Anyone who has watched Jeff Sessions testify since he became Attorney General knows that the refusal to answer due to the privacy of the conversation is one of his favorite go-to moves when he is trying to avoid providing damaging information to the Russia investigation.

If the answer was no, all Sessions had to do was say no, and it would help boost the President’s claims that he did not obstruct justice. The Attorney General’s refusal to answer was an answer itself. There have been media reports for months that Trump wanted to fire Sessions because he wouldn’t interfere and make the Russia investigation go away.

.........SNIP"

Traitors all.

Sessions is refusing to answer the question not because Trump did anything wrong but because conversations between a sitting President and his advisors are protected. Sessions has been consistent in his refusals to answer any questions for THAT reason...not because he's hiding something...something that Jason Easley from Politicus should understand...but then again...he's writing for Politicus and therefore he's writing propaganda...not writing fact based journalism!

Haha, good one.

 

[nat4900]

because conversations between a sitting President and his advisors are protected.

No, nitwit, the Supreme Court in 1974 ruled that Nixon's "private conversations" that were taped, HAD to release them to a congressional committee's inquiry.

 

[jknowgood]

Jaws Drop As Jeff Sessions All But Admits That Trump Obstructed Justice
By Jason Easley at Politicus USA

Jaws Drop As Jeff Sessions All But Admits That Trump Obstructed Justice

"SNIP..........

When asked by the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) if Trump ever directed him to hinder the Russia investigation, Attorney General Jeff Sessions refused to answer the question.

Manu Raju of CNN reported:


Manu Raju
✔
@mkraju
Schiff says he asked Sessions directly if Trump ever directed him to "hinder" the Russia investigation. He declined to answer, citing private conversations with Trump
1:07 PM - Nov 30, 2017
401 401 Replies 2,296 2,296 Retweets 3,708 3,708 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Schiff’s question is easy to answer if the answer is no. The only reason for Attorney General Session to decline to answer is that any answer that he could provide would damage Trump. Anyone who has watched Jeff Sessions testify since he became Attorney General knows that the refusal to answer due to the privacy of the conversation is one of his favorite go-to moves when he is trying to avoid providing damaging information to the Russia investigation.

If the answer was no, all Sessions had to do was say no, and it would help boost the President’s claims that he did not obstruct justice. The Attorney General’s refusal to answer was an answer itself. There have been media reports for months that Trump wanted to fire Sessions because he wouldn’t interfere and make the Russia investigation go away.

.........SNIP"

Traitors all.

He also said that more than likely, Hillary have classified information to our enemies. You didn't write about that though.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Jaws Drop As Jeff Sessions All But Admits That Trump Obstructed Justice
By Jason Easley at Politicus USA

Jaws Drop As Jeff Sessions All But Admits That Trump Obstructed Justice

"SNIP..........

When asked by the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) if Trump ever directed him to hinder the Russia investigation, Attorney General Jeff Sessions refused to answer the question.

Manu Raju of CNN reported:


Manu Raju
✔
@mkraju
Schiff says he asked Sessions directly if Trump ever directed him to "hinder" the Russia investigation. He declined to answer, citing private conversations with Trump
1:07 PM - Nov 30, 2017
401 401 Replies 2,296 2,296 Retweets 3,708 3,708 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Schiff’s question is easy to answer if the answer is no. The only reason for Attorney General Session to decline to answer is that any answer that he could provide would damage Trump. Anyone who has watched Jeff Sessions testify since he became Attorney General knows that the refusal to answer due to the privacy of the conversation is one of his favorite go-to moves when he is trying to avoid providing damaging information to the Russia investigation.

If the answer was no, all Sessions had to do was say no, and it would help boost the President’s claims that he did not obstruct justice. The Attorney General’s refusal to answer was an answer itself. There have been media reports for months that Trump wanted to fire Sessions because he wouldn’t interfere and make the Russia investigation go away.

.........SNIP"

Traitors all.

He also said that more than likely, Hillary have classified information to our enemies. You didn't write about that though.

Because the 10,000 Hillary threads are over there, genius ->

 

[nat4900]

He also said that more than likely, Hillary have classified information to our enemies. You didn't write about that though.

It took you 49 posts on this thread to bring up Hillary to defend the orange charlatan????

Shame on you for that slow response.....Didn't you read the Hannity memo?

 

[jknowgood]

Jaws Drop As Jeff Sessions All But Admits That Trump Obstructed Justice
By Jason Easley at Politicus USA

Jaws Drop As Jeff Sessions All But Admits That Trump Obstructed Justice

"SNIP..........

When asked by the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) if Trump ever directed him to hinder the Russia investigation, Attorney General Jeff Sessions refused to answer the question.

Manu Raju of CNN reported:


Manu Raju
✔
@mkraju
Schiff says he asked Sessions directly if Trump ever directed him to "hinder" the Russia investigation. He declined to answer, citing private conversations with Trump
1:07 PM - Nov 30, 2017
401 401 Replies 2,296 2,296 Retweets 3,708 3,708 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Schiff’s question is easy to answer if the answer is no. The only reason for Attorney General Session to decline to answer is that any answer that he could provide would damage Trump. Anyone who has watched Jeff Sessions testify since he became Attorney General knows that the refusal to answer due to the privacy of the conversation is one of his favorite go-to moves when he is trying to avoid providing damaging information to the Russia investigation.

If the answer was no, all Sessions had to do was say no, and it would help boost the President’s claims that he did not obstruct justice. The Attorney General’s refusal to answer was an answer itself. There have been media reports for months that Trump wanted to fire Sessions because he wouldn’t interfere and make the Russia investigation go away.

.........SNIP"

Traitors all.

He also said that more than likely, Hillary have classified information to our enemies. You didn't write about that though.

Because the 10,000 Hillary threads are over there, genius ->

Tell me, why doesn't she just shut up. She keeps herself in the media.

 

[jknowgood]

He also said that more than likely, Hillary have classified information to our enemies. You didn't write about that though.

It took you 49 posts on this thread to bring up Hillary to defend the orange charlatan????

Shame on you for that slow response.....Didn't you read the Hannity memo?

Why doesn't she just shut up? Can you come up with anymore excuses why she lost?

 

[easyt65]

'Jaws Drop As Jeff Sessions All But Admits That Trump Obstructed Justice'

Bwuhahaha....

Snowflakes' Jaw Dropped...Due to NO EVIDENCE Being Presented. Sessions did not say Trump 'obstructed'.

ADMITTING:
Chuck Schumer publicly declared Democrats are 100% committed to 'Obstruction' during Trump's Presidency.

ADMITTING:
Comey publicly declared Hillary broke the law.
He wrote that she had been 'grossly negligent' - a crime covered by an actual law.

'EVIDENCE' / 'TESTIMONY':
The IG investigating Hillary's crime has come forward to state Hillary and her team actually threatened him in the midst of his investigation.

...and snowflakes get excited about something they read into / project in the face of, again, zero evidence to support what they claim.

 

[Care4all]

Jaws Drop As Jeff Sessions All But Admits That Trump Obstructed Justice
By Jason Easley at Politicus USA

Jaws Drop As Jeff Sessions All But Admits That Trump Obstructed Justice

"SNIP..........

When asked by the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) if Trump ever directed him to hinder the Russia investigation, Attorney General Jeff Sessions refused to answer the question.

Manu Raju of CNN reported:


Manu Raju
✔
@mkraju
Schiff says he asked Sessions directly if Trump ever directed him to "hinder" the Russia investigation. He declined to answer, citing private conversations with Trump
1:07 PM - Nov 30, 2017
401 401 Replies 2,296 2,296 Retweets 3,708 3,708 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Schiff’s question is easy to answer if the answer is no. The only reason for Attorney General Session to decline to answer is that any answer that he could provide would damage Trump. Anyone who has watched Jeff Sessions testify since he became Attorney General knows that the refusal to answer due to the privacy of the conversation is one of his favorite go-to moves when he is trying to avoid providing damaging information to the Russia investigation.

If the answer was no, all Sessions had to do was say no, and it would help boost the President’s claims that he did not obstruct justice. The Attorney General’s refusal to answer was an answer itself. There have been media reports for months that Trump wanted to fire Sessions because he wouldn’t interfere and make the Russia investigation go away.

.........SNIP"

Traitors all.

In "fairness" to Sessions........the NON-answer protects him from committing perjury.....

actually it doesn't protect Sessions from obstruction of justice,

The amount of

I DON'T RECALLS, and I Believes, and all the statement answers of avoidance to answer the questions asked is contempt of Congress, and obstruction of justice....

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Jaws Drop As Jeff Sessions All But Admits That Trump Obstructed Justice
By Jason Easley at Politicus USA

Jaws Drop As Jeff Sessions All But Admits That Trump Obstructed Justice

"SNIP..........

When asked by the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) if Trump ever directed him to hinder the Russia investigation, Attorney General Jeff Sessions refused to answer the question.

Manu Raju of CNN reported:


Manu Raju
✔
@mkraju
Schiff says he asked Sessions directly if Trump ever directed him to "hinder" the Russia investigation. He declined to answer, citing private conversations with Trump
1:07 PM - Nov 30, 2017
401 401 Replies 2,296 2,296 Retweets 3,708 3,708 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Schiff’s question is easy to answer if the answer is no. The only reason for Attorney General Session to decline to answer is that any answer that he could provide would damage Trump. Anyone who has watched Jeff Sessions testify since he became Attorney General knows that the refusal to answer due to the privacy of the conversation is one of his favorite go-to moves when he is trying to avoid providing damaging information to the Russia investigation.

If the answer was no, all Sessions had to do was say no, and it would help boost the President’s claims that he did not obstruct justice. The Attorney General’s refusal to answer was an answer itself. There have been media reports for months that Trump wanted to fire Sessions because he wouldn’t interfere and make the Russia investigation go away.

.........SNIP"

Traitors all.

He also said that more than likely, Hillary have classified information to our enemies. You didn't write about that though.

Because the 10,000 Hillary threads are over there, genius ->

Tell me, why doesn't she just shut up. She keeps herself in the media.

Why don't you shut up? No offense, but you brought her up.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

'Jaws Drop As Jeff Sessions All But Admits That Trump Obstructed Justice'

Bwuhahaha....

Snowflakes' Jaw Dropped...Due to NO EVIDENCE Being Presented. Sessions did not say Trump 'obstructed'.

ADMITTING:
Chuck Schumer publicly declared Democrats are 100% committed to 'Obstruction' during Trump's Presidency.

ADMITTING:
Comey publicly declared Hillary broke the law.
He wrote that she had been 'grossly negligent' - a crime covered by an actual law.

'EVIDENCE' / 'TESTIMONY':
The IG investigating Hillary's crime has come forward to state Hillary and her team actually threatened him in the midst of his investigation.

...and snowflakes get excited about something they read into / project in the face of, again, zero evidence to support what they claim.

You are one delusional weirdo. After being about 0 for 900, have you thought about replacing your team of expert legal advisers?

 

[nat4900]

...and snowflakes get excited about something they read into / project in the face of, again, zero evidence to support what they claim.

 

[jknowgood]

Jaws Drop As Jeff Sessions All But Admits That Trump Obstructed Justice
By Jason Easley at Politicus USA

Jaws Drop As Jeff Sessions All But Admits That Trump Obstructed Justice

"SNIP..........

When asked by the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) if Trump ever directed him to hinder the Russia investigation, Attorney General Jeff Sessions refused to answer the question.

Manu Raju of CNN reported:


Manu Raju
✔
@mkraju
Schiff says he asked Sessions directly if Trump ever directed him to "hinder" the Russia investigation. He declined to answer, citing private conversations with Trump
1:07 PM - Nov 30, 2017
401 401 Replies 2,296 2,296 Retweets 3,708 3,708 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Schiff’s question is easy to answer if the answer is no. The only reason for Attorney General Session to decline to answer is that any answer that he could provide would damage Trump. Anyone who has watched Jeff Sessions testify since he became Attorney General knows that the refusal to answer due to the privacy of the conversation is one of his favorite go-to moves when he is trying to avoid providing damaging information to the Russia investigation.

If the answer was no, all Sessions had to do was say no, and it would help boost the President’s claims that he did not obstruct justice. The Attorney General’s refusal to answer was an answer itself. There have been media reports for months that Trump wanted to fire Sessions because he wouldn’t interfere and make the Russia investigation go away.

.........SNIP"

Traitors all.

He also said that more than likely, Hillary have classified information to our enemies. You didn't write about that though.

Because the 10,000 Hillary threads are over there, genius ->

Tell me, why doesn't she just shut up. She keeps herself in the media.

Why don't you shut up? No offense, but you brought her up.

She stays in the media. Blames everything but herself, for her failure.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Jaws Drop As Jeff Sessions All But Admits That Trump Obstructed Justice
By Jason Easley at Politicus USA

Jaws Drop As Jeff Sessions All But Admits That Trump Obstructed Justice

"SNIP..........


Traitors all.

He also said that more than likely, Hillary have classified information to our enemies. You didn't write about that though.

Because the 10,000 Hillary threads are over there, genius ->

Tell me, why doesn't she just shut up. She keeps herself in the media.

Why don't you shut up? No offense, but you brought her up.

She stays in the media. Blames everything but herself, for her failure.

You seem to be absolutely beside yourself over it. You've gotten to the point where you bring her up at inappropriate times. What else do you do? I feel for you, and I hope you can see your way through your crisis.