Sessions and the Reagan Defense

[Auld Phart]

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

COVER UP IN SPADES

That's what I was thinking watching KKK Sessions. It makes you wonder why every single person that is called in front of Congress doesn't just say to every question "I don't remember".

Let us thank cons once again for bringing us Watergate 4 months into a new administration.

Boy do you clowns know how to pick 'em.

Benghazi, missing emails, affairs....

"Boy, do you clowns know how to pick'em"

Put that up against Iraq,,,missing tax returns and pussy grabbing add 3 wifes 5 kids and screwed 1000's

What thread are you in?

 

[Siete]

back to the op ..


Sessions and the Reagan Defense

apparently Sessions couldnt recall Reagan died of Alzheimers ....

 

[Auld Phart]

and the Clintons punkd' the simpletons so the think they can punk everyone else

Should we ever allow someone with such a poor memory and organizational skills - bordering on dementia, even, to hold a high government office, such as attorney general?

Should we ever allow someone with such a poor memory and organizational skills - bordering on dementia, even, to hold a high government office, such as attorney general?

Or President, like Bill and wannabee Hillary, or Secretary of State?

Every time one of you fools bring up Sessions, you're putting your foot in your mouth

Bill and hillary were racists too?? I didn't know that,,Thanks will

racists?

where did that come from?

Starting a new thread?

Or pulling a rabbit out of your hat?

No rabbit Will
Fox & Friends tries to erase Jeff Sessions' racism and lying about ...
https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2017/06/13/...sessions-racism.../216883
1 day ago - Fox & Friends tries to erase Jeff Sessions' racism and lying about contacts with Russia ahead of public testimony ...

When did this thread, (the one we are in), become about racism?

Bugs is going to get tired of pulling on his ears if you keep going off topic.

 

[mamooth]

Poor little Nazi, "OUR WITCH HUNT DIDN'T WORK, NO FAIR"

Correct. Your Nazi witchhunt against Clinton failed, and you and your fellow brownshirts were humiliated and exposed as corrupt party stooges. That has to sting. All those years of work to put your fellow Nazis into power, and nothing to show for it. Hence, your ongoing butthurt.

And now, the investigations on the Trump admin have barely started, and you're already in full hysterical meltdown mode, madly trying to stop them.

Why do you act so guilty, if you're not guilty? You never saw any Democrats acting like you do. We always let investigations run their course, many times. You don't want that. What are you hiding?

 

[eddiew]

Should we ever allow someone with such a poor memory and organizational skills - bordering on dementia, even, to hold a high government office, such as attorney general?

Should we ever allow someone with such a poor memory and organizational skills - bordering on dementia, even, to hold a high government office, such as attorney general?

Or President, like Bill and wannabee Hillary, or Secretary of State?

Every time one of you fools bring up Sessions, you're putting your foot in your mouth

Bill and hillary were racists too?? I didn't know that,,Thanks will

racists?

where did that come from?

Starting a new thread?

Or pulling a rabbit out of your hat?

No rabbit Will
Fox & Friends tries to erase Jeff Sessions' racism and lying about ...
https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2017/06/13/...sessions-racism.../216883
1 day ago - Fox & Friends tries to erase Jeff Sessions' racism and lying about contacts with Russia ahead of public testimony ...

When did this thread, (the one we are in), become about racism?

Bugs is going to get tired of pulling on his ears if you keep going off topic.

Weren't we talking about Sessions?? the kind of man in such place as AG? If I was in error sorry won't mention it here again

 

[Auld Phart]

Or President, like Bill and wannabee Hillary, or Secretary of State?

Every time one of you fools bring up Sessions, you're putting your foot in your mouth

Bill and hillary were racists too?? I didn't know that,,Thanks will

racists?

where did that come from?

Starting a new thread?

Or pulling a rabbit out of your hat?

No rabbit Will
Fox & Friends tries to erase Jeff Sessions' racism and lying about ...
https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2017/06/13/...sessions-racism.../216883
1 day ago - Fox & Friends tries to erase Jeff Sessions' racism and lying about contacts with Russia ahead of public testimony ...

When did this thread, (the one we are in), become about racism?

Bugs is going to get tired of pulling on his ears if you keep going off topic.

Weren't we talking about Sessions?? the kind of man in such place as AG? If I was in error sorry won't mention it here again

the discussion has been about memory loss.

 

[eddiew]

Bill and hillary were racists too?? I didn't know that,,Thanks will

racists?

where did that come from?

Starting a new thread?

Or pulling a rabbit out of your hat?

No rabbit Will
Fox & Friends tries to erase Jeff Sessions' racism and lying about ...
https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2017/06/13/...sessions-racism.../216883
1 day ago - Fox & Friends tries to erase Jeff Sessions' racism and lying about contacts with Russia ahead of public testimony ...

When did this thread, (the one we are in), become about racism?

Bugs is going to get tired of pulling on his ears if you keep going off topic.

Weren't we talking about Sessions?? the kind of man in such place as AG? If I was in error sorry won't mention it here again

the discussion has been about memory loss.

So? He forgot?......I need a scotch ,,you take care and congrats on your new position

 

[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."

So now your trying to move the goal posts. I answered a question relating to the AGs conversations with the president.

Now feel free to quote the question and answer he claimed privilege on when he was a senator.


.

Sorry, I forget in right wing world Session can choose which questions he answers when it deals with privilege Session invoked with Cheeto

 

[Siete]

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."

So now your trying to move the goal posts. I answered a question relating to the AGs conversations with the president.

Now feel free to quote the question and answer he claimed privilege on when he was a senator.


.

Sorry, I forget in right wing world Session can choose which questions he answers when it deals with privilege Session invoked with Cheeto

Sessions may look like a child molester, and have a very weak memory, but he's not a RAT.

YET .....

 

[OKTexas]

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."

So now your trying to move the goal posts. I answered a question relating to the AGs conversations with the president.

Now feel free to quote the question and answer he claimed privilege on when he was a senator.


.

Sorry, I forget in right wing world Session can choose which questions he answers when it deals with privilege Session invoked with Cheeto

So you have no example, meaning you're a liar.


.

 

[radical right]

So now your trying to move the goal posts. I answered a question relating to the AGs conversations with the president.

Now feel free to quote the question and answer he claimed privilege on when he was a senator.


.

Sorry, I forget in right wing world Session can choose which questions he answers when it deals with privilege Session invoked with Cheeto

I thought executive privilege was a claim to be made by the executive (aka the president) who in this case didn't envoke it. So Sessions refused to answer because he was preserving a right the president didn't exercise.

What next? When the FBI wants to question somebody, Sessions will end the interview to preserve the suspects 5th amendment rights. Even if he wants to talk.

 

[OKTexas]

So now your trying to move the goal posts. I answered a question relating to the AGs conversations with the president.

Now feel free to quote the question and answer he claimed privilege on when he was a senator.


.

Sorry, I forget in right wing world Session can choose which questions he answers when it deals with privilege Session invoked with Cheeto

I thought executive privilege was a claim to be made by the executive (aka the president) who in this case didn't envoke it. So Sessions refused to answer because he was preserving a right the president didn't exercise.

What next? When the FBI wants to question somebody, Sessions will end the interview to preserve the suspects 5th amendment rights. Even if he wants to talk.

Read the link in post #65.


.

 

[JonKoch]

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."

So now your trying to move the goal posts. I answered a question relating to the AGs conversations with the president.

Now feel free to quote the question and answer he claimed privilege on when he was a senator.


.

Sorry, I forget in right wing world Session can choose which questions he answers when it deals with privilege Session invoked with Cheeto

So you have no example, meaning you're a liar.


.

Sessions: I can’t discuss conversations with the president. 9 legal experts: Yes, you can.



The 9 experts who rejected Sessions's "executive privilege" argument

Asha Rangappa, Associate Dean, Yale Law School
I believe Heinrich is 100% right in this case. First, executive privilege, if it even applies in this case, can only be invoked by the president, as it attaches to his office. Sessions cannot “preemptively” invoke it on the president’s behalf. Second, I’m not sure what DOJ policy has to do with this. DOJ policy is an internal executive branch regulation. It doesn’t provide a legal shield against testifying in Congress when it is conducting an investigation as part of its oversight function.



...Samuel Gross, law professor, University of Michigan


...One last point. Sessions spoke in detail about the reasons he had for recommending Comey's removal — all of which related to Comey's conduct before the election — and he said that he told the president what he thought on that issue. But when Sen. [Angus] King asked him if the president discussed the Russia investigation with him in the context of the discussion of firing Comey, Sessions said he couldn't discuss those communications with the president because they were confidential and the president might want to claim a privilege.

When privileges apply they attach to both sides of a discussion — what Sessions said to Trump as well as what Trump said to Sessions. If you talk about one part of a potentially privileged conversation — the words you yourself spoke — you've waived any privilege you might be entitled to raise for to the entire communication, including what the other person said. Short version: In a normal court proceeding, by the time Sessions refused to discuss what Trump may have said about the Russia investigation he had already waived any privilege he could raise about any part of that discussion.


Sessions: I can’t discuss conversations with the president. 9 legal experts: Yes, you can.

 

[radical right]

Sorry, I forget in right wing world Session can choose which questions he answers when it deals with privilege Session invoked with Cheeto

So you have no example, meaning you're a liar.


.

WARNER: To your knowledge, have any Department of Justice officials been involved with conversations about any possibility of presidential pardons about any of the individuals involved with the Russia investigation?

SESSIONS: Mr. Chairman, I'm not able to comment on conversations with high officials within the white house. That would be a violation of the communications rule that I have to --

WARNER: Just so I can understand, is the basis of that unwilling to answer based on executive privilege?

SESSIONS: It's a long standing policy. The department of justice not to comment on conversations that the attorney general had with the president of the united States for confidential reasons that rounded in the coequal branch.

WARNER: Just so I understand, is that mean you claim executive privilege?

SESSIONS: I'm not claiming executive privilege because that's the president's power and I have no power there.

 

[JonKoch]

So now your trying to move the goal posts. I answered a question relating to the AGs conversations with the president.

Now feel free to quote the question and answer he claimed privilege on when he was a senator.


.

Sorry, I forget in right wing world Session can choose which questions he answers when it deals with privilege Session invoked with Cheeto

I thought executive privilege was a claim to be made by the executive (aka the president) who in this case didn't envoke it. So Sessions refused to answer because he was preserving a right the president didn't exercise.

What next? When the FBI wants to question somebody, Sessions will end the interview to preserve the suspects 5th amendment rights. Even if he wants to talk.

The right wing nutjobs, like Cheeto's crew is hanging onto a DOJ OPINION from 1982 but interpreting it BADLY according to legal experts


Sessions: I can’t discuss conversations with the president. 9 legal experts: Yes, you can.

 

[radical right]

Read the link in post #65.


.

That's privilege with presidential communications.

Read the question again:

WARNER: To your knowledge, have any Department of Justice officials been involved with conversations about any possibility of presidential pardons about any of the individuals involved with the Russia investigation?

 

[OKTexas]

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."

So now your trying to move the goal posts. I answered a question relating to the AGs conversations with the president.

Now feel free to quote the question and answer he claimed privilege on when he was a senator.


.

Sorry, I forget in right wing world Session can choose which questions he answers when it deals with privilege Session invoked with Cheeto

So you have no example, meaning you're a liar.


.

Sessions: I can’t discuss conversations with the president. 9 legal experts: Yes, you can.



The 9 experts who rejected Sessions's "executive privilege" argument

Asha Rangappa, Associate Dean, Yale Law School
I believe Heinrich is 100% right in this case. First, executive privilege, if it even applies in this case, can only be invoked by the president, as it attaches to his office. Sessions cannot “preemptively” invoke it on the president’s behalf. Second, I’m not sure what DOJ policy has to do with this. DOJ policy is an internal executive branch regulation. It doesn’t provide a legal shield against testifying in Congress when it is conducting an investigation as part of its oversight function.



...Samuel Gross, law professor, University of Michigan


...One last point. Sessions spoke in detail about the reasons he had for recommending Comey's removal — all of which related to Comey's conduct before the election — and he said that he told the president what he thought on that issue. But when Sen. [Angus] King asked him if the president discussed the Russia investigation with him in the context of the discussion of firing Comey, Sessions said he couldn't discuss those communications with the president because they were confidential and the president might want to claim a privilege.

When privileges apply they attach to both sides of a discussion — what Sessions said to Trump as well as what Trump said to Sessions. If you talk about one part of a potentially privileged conversation — the words you yourself spoke — you've waived any privilege you might be entitled to raise for to the entire communication, including what the other person said. Short version: In a normal court proceeding, by the time Sessions refused to discuss what Trump may have said about the Russia investigation he had already waived any privilege he could raise about any part of that discussion.


Sessions: I can’t discuss conversations with the president. 9 legal experts: Yes, you can.

This was your claim snowflake, back it up.

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

Or you can just admit it was a lie.


.

 

[OKTexas]

Sorry, I forget in right wing world Session can choose which questions he answers when it deals with privilege Session invoked with Cheeto

So you have no example, meaning you're a liar.


.

WARNER: To your knowledge, have any Department of Justice officials been involved with conversations about any possibility of presidential pardons about any of the individuals involved with the Russia investigation?

SESSIONS: Mr. Chairman, I'm not able to comment on conversations with high officials within the white house. That would be a violation of the communications rule that I have to --

WARNER: Just so I can understand, is the basis of that unwilling to answer based on executive privilege?

SESSIONS: It's a long standing policy. The department of justice not to comment on conversations that the attorney general had with the president of the united States for confidential reasons that rounded in the coequal branch.

WARNER: Just so I understand, is that mean you claim executive privilege?

SESSIONS: I'm not claiming executive privilege because that's the president's power and I have no power there.

You're not following the conversation too well, that was in response that Sessions didn't answer questions when he was a senator. I asked for an example where Sessions claimed privilege when he was a senator. Also it appears you haven't read the link at post #62.


.

 

[JonKoch]

 

[OKTexas]

Read the link in post #65.


.

That's privilege with presidential communications.

Read the question again:

WARNER: To your knowledge, have any Department of Justice officials been involved with conversations about any possibility of presidential pardons about any of the individuals involved with the Russia investigation?

Wouldn't the president have to initiate any discussions about pardons? Why would DOJ be discussing pardons if it weren't brought up to them?

.