Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your suspicions and those of your leftist friends, or your opinion that there are "explosive" events happening are not proof of anything. The incessant effort to discredit Trump with phantom connections to Russia is a crock of c**p that nobody is buying except the left. You can nitpick the details all you like, but the underlying premise remains a crock. Are you people really going to keep this up for the next 47 months? Good. See you in 2020.
Why do people misunderstand this simple point?
I'm not saying it is proof that anyone is guilty. It does mean we should investigate it, though (which we are).
Do you not think it's worth looking into in an exhaustive way? If not, why not?
Last edited by HockeyMac18; 03-03-2017 at 03:20 PM..
That poster does the same thing in the Climate Science threads. Make no mistake, they are not "balanced" or "objective", they are only claiming to appear as such.
I've posted the link twice now to the video. Feel free to watch.
I posted the video that proved you wrong! /derp /derp!
I asked you SPECIFICALLY to use the quotes of the question, and point out exactly what he answered that was a violation of his oath. I did this so you would be forced to provide context, so you would actually have to take ownership of the claim you were making rather than simply "pointing" to a general area and claiming you have a point.
A person who has a point, is able to ascertain it, not vaguely mention.
So put up, or run along!
(we both know your "objective" position is a dog an pony show)
This is just weird. Why lie about something like this? Why even mention "I did not have any communication with the Russians" when he wasn't even asked if HE had any communication with the Russians.
You don't consider this lying?
My God, ha ha ha. You can't get it? This is ridiculous.
He's being asked if he knew about "anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign" that may have had contact with the Russians? The answer was of course no.
They didn't ask him if he ever met with Russians in the course of doing business as a Senator. Jeff Sessions became part of the Trump Administration as a nominee in January, 2017.
CONTEXT....
Now if they asked him if as a Senator had he ever met with the Russians like all the other Senators he would have likely answered differently. I mean, the Russian evil guy in question was sitting with the Democrats in Congress during the Trump speech. Get real!
My God, ha ha ha. You can't get it? This is ridiculous.
He's being asked if he knew about "anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign" that may have had contact with the Russians? The answer was of course no.
They didn't ask him if he ever met with Russians in the course of doing business as a Senator. Jeff Sessions became part of the Trump Administration as a nominee in January, 2017.
CONTEXT....
Now if they asked him if as a Senator had he ever met with the Russians like all the other Senators he would have likely answered differently. I mean, the Russian evil guy in question was sitting with the Democrats in Congress during the Trump speech. Get real!
Given that sessions used campaign funds to travel the get together where he met him once, I think that qualifies as affiliated.
But again, this may or may not be related to the base issue. We've established that Russia involved itself in our elections to benefit Trump. Now we are just trying to find out how much. Why would anyone object to that?
I'm not saying it is proof that anyone is guilty. It does mean we should investigate it, though.
Do you not think it's worth looking into in an exhaustive way? If not, why not?
What would you be investigating since the Intel community already called it a nothing burger, and the press has been shown again to be misrepresenting the actual question asked?
They asked Sessions if he knew of anyone in the Trump Campaign who were meeting with the Russians?
His answer was no, which was true.
Now keep in mind they did not ask Sessions if he ever met with the Russians in his position as Senator. If they did, then they could play gotcha!
Points in fact that close your perspective down.
#1 Sessions was not part of a campaign with Trump until his nomination in January of 2017.
#2 Sessions favored Trump as President, but said he would support who ever was the Republican primary winner.
#3 Nobody was meeting with Russians until AFTER the election was won.
#4 It is normal for all Administrations to return calls or reach out after the election before being sworn in to transition peacefully into the Presidency with all the countries they can.
Fact: Before Obama was sworn in he sent his people over to Russia for a meeting in 2009. Oh my God, a meeting with the Ruskies.
Given that sessions used campaign funds to travel the get together where he met him once, I think that qualifies as affiliated.
But again, this may or may not be related to the base issue. We've established that Russia involved itself in our elections to benefit Trump. Now we are just trying to find out how much. Why would anyone object to that?
Sessions used his OWN prior little bank account of campaign funds to travel to many places of political interest which is 100% legal under the law. He probably did not have Trump fly him out to avoid conflict of interest laws.
He was in the Senate, not at that time a member of the Trump campaign. He liked Trump more than others, so Impeach him for that if you can. People are allowed to have a candidate they like and be in office.
Meanwhile he only came on board in January, 2017.
I asked you SPECIFICALLY to use the quotes of the question, and point out exactly what he answered that was a violation of his oath.
I did this so you would be forced to provide context, so you would actually have to take ownership of the claim you were making rather than simply "pointing" to a general area and claiming you have a point.
And I provided a video link that went directly to the question. It seems you can't watch it...which isn't really my fault. But I'll go ahead and post the quote regardless (I'd personally rather watch something and hear it with my own ears than trust someone on the internet to send me a transcript...but hey, that's just me):
Senator Franken: If there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign what will you do?
Senator Sessions: Senator Franken I'm not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians. And I'm unable to comment on it.
Senator Franken: Very well. Without divulging sensitive information, do you know about this or know what compromising personal financial information the Russians claim to have?
Senator Sessions: Senator Franken allegations yet made about candidates all the time and they've been made about President elect Trump a lot sometimes, most of them, virtually all of them, have been proven to be exaggerated or untrue. I would just say to you I have no information about this matter. I've had not been in on their classified briefings. And am not a member of the intelligence committee. And I've just not able to give you any comment on it that this time.
Senator Franken:Totally fair.
What other information are you requesting here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NxtGen
A person who has a point, is able to ascertain it, not vaguely mention.
I was pretty clear about what point I was making.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NxtGen
So put up, or run along!
(we both know your "objective" position is a dog an pony show)
Let's not make this personal. You are one of the most biased posters I've ever come across, and you rarely read any material that I provide for my posts. This thread is just YET another example of that (ignoring a video that contains the exact information that you're requesting ).
You almost never provide citations - you might want to start. It would at least help your case on whatever topic you're writing about.
What would you be investigating since the Intel community already called it a nothing burger, and the press has been shown again to be misrepresenting the actual question asked?
They asked Sessions if he knew of anyone in the Trump Campaign who were meeting with the Russians?
His answer was no, which was true.
Now keep in mind they did not ask Sessions if he ever met with the Russians in his position as Senator. If they did, then they could play gotcha!
Points in fact that close your perspective down.
#1 Sessions was not part of a campaign with Trump until his nomination in January of 2017.
#2 Sessions favored Trump as President, but said he would support who ever was the Republican primary winner.
#3 Nobody was meeting with Russians until AFTER the election was won.
#4 It is normal for all Administrations to return calls or reach out after the election before being sworn in to transition peacefully into the Presidency with all the countries they can.
Fact: Before Obama was sworn in he sent his people over to Russia for a meeting in 2009. Oh my God, a meeting with the Ruskies.
The issue isn't meeting or talking to the Russians. As you rightly mention, there are very legitimate reasons to meet with the Russians. And maybe these are legitimate meetings. They probably are. Hell, probably nothing actually meaningful is happening here.
The issue is about the lying/misrepresentation. It can't be denied that there is a weird relationship between Trump (and his team) and Russia, and I think it's worth clearing that up. And lying about it/misrepresenting the communications doesn't help their case.
I don't care if Obama talked to the Russians in the past. I don't care if Republicans talk to the Russians now. I don't care if Hillary got money from Russia (if that's true, prosecute her, I don't care about Hillary).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
