Sessions and the Reagan Defense

[Auld Phart]

1 am here, and I need all the beauty sleep I can get.

nite

 

[JonKoch]

Sorry Cupcake note I gave you a LATimes link (credible source), you gave a blog??? lol

Note, you have yet to disprove the content, just that you dislike the source.

Sorry Cupcake, a blog vs LATimes? You lose

not until you disprove the content.

and somehow, I don't think you can, or will even try.

Sorry Cupcake, I did, note the LAtimes link, twice?

Saw it.

LAtimes?

as nonpartisan as the site I linked.

Proves SOME of his 'duh' moments, not necessarily all of them.

Try harder.

An ANTI CLINTON BLOG SITE IS AS IMPARTIAL AS THE LATIMES?? lol

 

[TheDude]

"I don't recall", "I can't remember", "I don't believe so", ad nausea

COVER UP IN SPADES

Let's say you were right. Why make this Republican when the worst are the Clintons? Here’s All 40 Times Hillary Clinton Told the FBI She Couldn’t Remember Something

 

[OKTexas]

"I don't recall", "I can't remember", "I don't believe so", ad nausea

COVER UP IN SPADES

I bet the air is really getting rancid in that hole you're digging. LMAO


.

 

[OKTexas]

Well, looks at it from Sessions' POV. He doesn't want to perjure himself by denying the Russian connections he knows about, but he doesn't want to admit to them. So, "I don't recall" was his only option.

Needless to say, he looked guilty as hell. That's what the nation saw, along with seeing Kamela Harris almost make Sessions cry. She clearly terrifies the Trump-snowflakes. The nation also saw Sessions refuse to deny that the Russian connections existed.

Maybe one of the snowfalkes can answer Harris's question. What law or written policy allowed Sessions to refuse to answer so many questions concerning his conversations with Trump? It's not Executive Privilege, because that was never invoked by Trump. That is, why shouldn't he be cited for Contempt of Congress? Not that the corrupt Republicans would allow it, but it's what should happen, according to the law.

Sure no problem.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/1982/08/31/op-olc-v006-p0481_0.pdf

Google can be your friend.

Any questions?


.

 

[OKTexas]

geezus.....what the hell makes you people think any of those assholes on both sides dont lie and coverup their shit?.....havent you people learned anything about these asswipes?....

But, that is not a denial that Sessions, today, showed contempt for the Congress [of course over 80% of Americans - or so - find Congress contemptible] but I and they are not under oath to tell the truth.

Sessions ought to be cited for Contempt of Congress and the H. or Rep. out to debate impeachment of the AG for the violation of his oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Of course Paul Ryan will need to think long and hard on the problem he faces, that being, "how does this effect me", before he acts on anything.

Congress should be cited for contempt of Congress.....

You're better than this Harry.

i dont see how i can be any better Wry....unlike many out there i actually can see how both parties are out for themselves,all they want is power and will do what ever it takes to get it.....and if screwing over the country is a by product of their bullshit games.....they dont care.....they know their loyal ass kissers will buy all their excuses.....we see that here in these threads every day....

That's your opinion, which party defends Civil Rights? Equal Rights? And Equal Opportunities? Which party opposed the Equal Rights Amendment, the Civil Rights Act, Gay and Lesbian Marriage?

Little off topic ain't ya?


.

 

[JonKoch]

Well, looks at it from Sessions' POV. He doesn't want to perjure himself by denying the Russian connections he knows about, but he doesn't want to admit to them. So, "I don't recall" was his only option.

Needless to say, he looked guilty as hell. That's what the nation saw, along with seeing Kamela Harris almost make Sessions cry. She clearly terrifies the Trump-snowflakes. The nation also saw Sessions refuse to deny that the Russian connections existed.

Maybe one of the snowfalkes can answer Harris's question. What law or written policy allowed Sessions to refuse to answer so many questions concerning his conversations with Trump? It's not Executive Privilege, because that was never invoked by Trump. That is, why shouldn't he be cited for Contempt of Congress? Not that the corrupt Republicans would allow it, but it's what should happen, according to the law.

Sure no problem.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/1982/08/31/op-olc-v006-p0481_0.pdf

Google can be your friend.

Any questions?


.

YOU DO UNDERSTAND TED OLSEN WAS DISCUSSING EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE WHICH WASN'T INVOKED RIGHT CUPCAKE?

Last paragraph:


"While the foregoing discussion should prove helpful in providing a framework for analysis of potential claims of privilege, we would caution that the applicability of any privilege to a given set of circumstances will almost always involve a judgment of competing values. While the Attorney General or the client must decide initially whether to assert the privilege, the task of resolving conflicts arising out of such competing values, in the final analysis, is one that is reserved to the courts.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/1982/08/31/op-olc-v006-p0481_0.pdf

"

 

[OKTexas]

Well, looks at it from Sessions' POV. He doesn't want to perjure himself by denying the Russian connections he knows about, but he doesn't want to admit to them. So, "I don't recall" was his only option.

Needless to say, he looked guilty as hell. That's what the nation saw, along with seeing Kamela Harris almost make Sessions cry. She clearly terrifies the Trump-snowflakes. The nation also saw Sessions refuse to deny that the Russian connections existed.

Maybe one of the snowfalkes can answer Harris's question. What law or written policy allowed Sessions to refuse to answer so many questions concerning his conversations with Trump? It's not Executive Privilege, because that was never invoked by Trump. That is, why shouldn't he be cited for Contempt of Congress? Not that the corrupt Republicans would allow it, but it's what should happen, according to the law.

Sure no problem.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/1982/08/31/op-olc-v006-p0481_0.pdf

Google can be your friend.

Any questions?


.

YOU DO UNDERSTAND TED OLSEN WAS DISCUSSING EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE WHICH WASN'T INVOKED RIGHT CUPCAKE?

Last paragraph:


"While the foregoing discussion should prove helpful in providing a framework for analysis of potential claims of privilege, we would caution that the applicability of any privilege to a given set of circumstances will almost always involve a judgment of competing values. While the Attorney General or the client must decide initially whether to assert the privilege, the task of resolving conflicts arising out of such competing values, in the final analysis, is one that is reserved to the courts.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/1982/08/31/op-olc-v006-p0481_0.pdf

"

Wrong answer, there's a difference between a privileged conversation between an attorney acting as a legal advisor and his client and executive privilege. It covers constitutional privilege and executive privilege and an AGs authority to assert attorney client privilege.

Attorney General re: The Constitutional Privilege for Executive Branch Deliberations: The Dispute with a House Subcommittee over Documents Concerning Gasoline Conservation Fee” (Jan. 18, 1981) (hereafter Hannon Memorandum); Rehnquist Testimony, supra.8 It is premised on the need to discuss confidential matters which arise within the Executive Branch and to assist the President in the discharge of his constitutional powers and duties, by ensuring discussion that is free-flowing and frank, unencumbered by fear of disclosure or intrusion by the public or the other branches of government. The President and those who assist him require candid advice on the wide range of issues which confront the Executive, and such candid advice may not be forthcoming if Cabinet advisers or their aides must anticipate disclosure of the advice rendered by them and the potential public or legislative criticism which might result therefrom.


.

 

[Siete]

its imperative for a man holding Sessions position to have a strong mind. Obviously he's further along with his alzheimers than Trump is.

 

[bripat9643]

"I don't recall", "I can't remember", "I don't believe so", ad nausea

COVER UP IN SPADES

Here’s All 40 Times Hillary Clinton Told the FBI She Couldn’t Remember Something

What a fucking dumbass.

 

[bripat9643]

its imperative for a man holding Sessions position to have a strong mind. Obviously he's further along with his alzheimers than Trump is.

Apparently Hillary had Alzheimer's disease a long time ago.

Here’s All 40 Times Hillary Clinton Told the FBI She Couldn’t Remember Something

 

[Cellblock2429]

llegal server

Lie.

Deleting 30,000 e mails

Lie.

DNC rigged the nomination

Lie.

We get it already. You always lie. You can't defend your own corrupt party, so lying about the Democrats is all you can do.

And again, by always instantly deflecting, you're admitting that you can't defend the actions of the Trump admin. You would if you could. You can't. You know they're corrupt, but you still worship them. By willingly running cover for them, you've become an active participant in their criminality.

/----- If Hildabeast did none of those things, why did she admit it was a mistake and promise to never do it again?

 

[JonKoch]

Well, looks at it from Sessions' POV. He doesn't want to perjure himself by denying the Russian connections he knows about, but he doesn't want to admit to them. So, "I don't recall" was his only option.

Needless to say, he looked guilty as hell. That's what the nation saw, along with seeing Kamela Harris almost make Sessions cry. She clearly terrifies the Trump-snowflakes. The nation also saw Sessions refuse to deny that the Russian connections existed.

Maybe one of the snowfalkes can answer Harris's question. What law or written policy allowed Sessions to refuse to answer so many questions concerning his conversations with Trump? It's not Executive Privilege, because that was never invoked by Trump. That is, why shouldn't he be cited for Contempt of Congress? Not that the corrupt Republicans would allow it, but it's what should happen, according to the law.

Sure no problem.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/1982/08/31/op-olc-v006-p0481_0.pdf

Google can be your friend.

Any questions?


.

YOU DO UNDERSTAND TED OLSEN WAS DISCUSSING EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE WHICH WASN'T INVOKED RIGHT CUPCAKE?

Last paragraph:


"While the foregoing discussion should prove helpful in providing a framework for analysis of potential claims of privilege, we would caution that the applicability of any privilege to a given set of circumstances will almost always involve a judgment of competing values. While the Attorney General or the client must decide initially whether to assert the privilege, the task of resolving conflicts arising out of such competing values, in the final analysis, is one that is reserved to the courts.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/1982/08/31/op-olc-v006-p0481_0.pdf

"

Wrong answer, there's a difference between a privileged conversation between an attorney acting as a legal advisor and his client and executive privilege. It covers constitutional privilege and executive privilege and an AGs authority to assert attorney client privilege.

Attorney General re: The Constitutional Privilege for Executive Branch Deliberations: The Dispute with a House Subcommittee over Documents Concerning Gasoline Conservation Fee” (Jan. 18, 1981) (hereafter Hannon Memorandum); Rehnquist Testimony, supra.8 It is premised on the need to discuss confidential matters which arise within the Executive Branch and to assist the President in the discharge of his constitutional powers and duties, by ensuring discussion that is free-flowing and frank, unencumbered by fear of disclosure or intrusion by the public or the other branches of government. The President and those who assist him require candid advice on the wide range of issues which confront the Executive, and such candid advice may not be forthcoming if Cabinet advisers or their aides must anticipate disclosure of the advice rendered by them and the potential public or legislative criticism which might result therefrom.


.

Sorry Cupcake the AG for Cheeto NEVER said that? Weird right? It's WHAT'S discussed which MIGHT be privileged not what Sessions did


When you have to invent a new form of privilege to duck questions at a Congressional investigation, 'winning'??


BTW, THE QUESTIONS INCLUDED AT THE TIME HE WAS SENATOR, NOT AG

"There is no legally binding basis for refusing to answer questions unrelated to an ongoing investigation unless the President is invoking executive privilege," William Yeomans, a 26-year veteran of the Justice Department and fellow at American University Law School, told CNN."That privilege is not absolute -- it can be overcome by a sufficient interest. DOJ traditionally does not discuss ongoing investigations in public, but ultimately must answer questions unless executive privilege is properly invoked and upheld."

 

[Wry Catcher]

"I don't recall", "I can't remember", "I don't believe so", ad nausea

COVER UP IN SPADES

Only the left can remember what Reagan said and skip over the " I don't recall " bitch of the century..




View attachment 132825



.

Only stupid people continue to being up HRC, stupid because it has no bearing on the events of today, and by doing so they provide evidence that they don't know much about anything.

No only partisian morons would even bother to make a post like this ...when they knew they were going to be made fun of.



.

"No only partisian morons would even bother to make a post like this ...when they knew they were going to be made fun of" by partisan hacks who are in denial, and can't fathom the difference between a damn lie and a political lie - the former puts America in Jeopardy, the latter exposes a singular effort to mislead the public.

 

[Reasonable]

The Democrats on the committee look like goddam fools. Sessions should have told Kamala Harris to get back in the kitchen.

A misogynist, an idiot and a non patriot.
You hit the trifecta!

 

[Reasonable]

Sessions lied under oath. Why are you defending him?
Months ago he said he met with Russians, then he said he can't remember, then he said he didn't.

And you're still supporting this racist garden gnome liar?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The Democrats on the committee look like goddam fools. Sessions should have told Kamala Harris to get back in the kitchen.

A misogynist, an idiot and a non patriot.
You hit the trifecta!

Not at all. My wife agreed with me.

 

[Reasonable]

"I don't recall", "I can't remember", "I don't believe so", ad nausea

COVER UP IN SPADES

Only the left can remember what Reagan said and skip over the " I don't recall " bitch of the century..




View attachment 132825



.

If Hillary said she met with Russians and then under oath said she didn't would you believe her?
Of course you wouldn't.
This is what Sessions did and you believe him.
My your hypocrisy is thick.

 

[Reasonable]

The Democrats on the committee look like goddam fools. Sessions should have told Kamala Harris to get back in the kitchen.

A misogynist, an idiot and a non patriot.
You hit the trifecta!

Not at all. My wife agreed with me.

Then she's just as big a kunt as you are.
Plus you both admit to being idiots and non patriots.
Congratulations.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Lol, how many times did wild bill say I dont recall. Beyond hilarious watching the kettle strike down the pot while a cemetary full of bones is in the background.

I have no idea how many time President Clinton said I don't recall, I don't recall any. Suppose you post evidence of each time, since you seem to claim to be an authority.

Bye-bye, you will cut and run.

FBI releases Hillary Clinton email report, interview notes - CNNPolitics.com

"The documents indicate Clinton told investigators she either does not "recall" or "remember" at least 39 times — often in response to questions about process, potential training or the content of specific emails."

So? What evidence do you have as to the questions asked, and the issues which they hoped to uncover? Was it an inquiry into TREASON?

That's what the current investigations are all about - TREASON!