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

[TheDude]

Sessions is smart. He knows what snowflakes we have on the left today.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Trump so far is doing a great job.

No doubt! A+!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sessions is smart. He knows what snowflakes we have on the left today.

Sorry to break your heart, but Sessions is a rat jumping off of a sinking ship. He is in full-on CYA mode.

 

[OKTexas]

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 has never discussed private conversations with his boss, this is nothing new. Assume it means something other than that at your own pearl.


.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Assume it means something

Not giving an answer of "no" means something. Unless you would like to make the somewhat bizarre claim that he didn't give an answer of "no", which would have been exonerative of Trump, in order to maintain the principle of "not speaking about any privileged discussions with the president".

Would you make such a claim?

 

[OKTexas]

Assume it means something

Not giving an answer of "no" means something. Unless you would like to make the somewhat bizarre claim that he didn't give an answer of "no", which would have been exonerative of Trump, in order to maintain the principle of "not speaking about any privileged discussions with the president".

Would you make such a claim?

Yep, he set a precedent of not revealing private conversations, when you violate that once, it's no longer the precedent. Principles, things regressives have no relationship with. LMAO


.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It's late, OK, and you are not making sense. Go to bed.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Assume it means something

Not giving an answer of "no" means something. Unless you would like to make the somewhat bizarre claim that he didn't give an answer of "no", which would have been exonerative of Trump, in order to maintain the principle of "not speaking about any privileged discussions with the president".

Would you make such a claim?

Yep, he set a precedent of not revealing private conversations, when you violate that once, it's no longer the precedent. Principles, things regressives have no relationship with. LMAO


.

Ok, just so we are clear:

You are making the bizarre claim that Sessions did not give the exonerative answer of "no" - which would have protected Trump - in order to instead protect the principle of not talking about privileged discussions ( which acyually aren't privileged, because the president has not declared them to be).

And you make the factually and historically incorrect claim that he was "setting precedent".

Okay, you are being ridiculous. The first part of your claim is laughably bizarre, and you clearly pulled it right out of your ass. The second part of your claim is shockingly ansurd and demonstrably false, as clearly Sessions has answered direct questions about his conversations with Trump before and since.

So, is that really the best you have? A claim that is half bizarre and half demonstrably false? Why do this to yourself? It is so much easier, less embarrassing, and more truthful to admit the obvious .