THE ERA OF TRUMP

[K@th]

Color me shocked. Nobody should be giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Fair point, except she meant she had no contact with Russia in her capacity as member of Armed Forces Committee. (Because we're allowed to add words to what Senators say to make it sound like they meant what we wished they said! AMIRIGHT?)

[apeman]

Twitter is circulating a Claire McCaskill tweet from 2013 : "off to a meeting with Russian ambassador..."

and

2015: "today calls with British, Russain and German Ambassadors . . . "

That is really, really bad. Shame on her. We can't believe a word these fuckers say, with or without taking an oath.

AND

I can't even promise that the TWEETS that I just read are authentic.

The fact that we cannot trust anything is likely much more corrosive and dangerous than any other threat facing our society.

[Dand]

Twitter is circulating a Claire McCaskill tweet from 2013 : "off to a meeting with Russian ambassador..."

and

2015: "today calls with British, Russain and German Ambassadors . . . "

That is really, really bad. Shame on her. We can't believe a word these fuckers say, with or without taking an oath.

+11111

[Speaker to Animals]

http://www.businessinsider.com/democrat ... cts-2017-3

Well, it has been remarked that he doesn't have a strong recollection of what was said in those meetings prior to the election.

Twitter is circulating a Claire McCaskill tweet from 2013 : "off to a meeting with Russian ambassador..."

and

2015: "today calls with British, Russain and German Ambassadors . . . "

There is no bottom to this well of stupidity.

[Alexander PhiAlipson]

Let me ask you, do you find Session's story to be suspicious? Even if you don't, do you think it reasonable that we try to find out if he is telling the truth or not, to find out what may have happened?

As far as I understand it his story goes, "No --" so, mostly based upon my answer to your second question, the answer to your first is, yes.
In regards to your second question, what are "we" hoping to find out? Is it liar, liar, pants on fire, or how Hillary lost because of the Russians?

[StCapps]

Franken never asked Sessions whether he had contact with the Russian's and yet he brought up the subject to cover for others whose contact with the Russian's he said he was unaware of and this made it look like he lied under oath, even when they didn't ask him the question directly. That was stupid enough, but then when they asked Sessions directly whether he had contacted the Russians, he definitely lied.

The stupidity here is next level, even if there was nothing to hide, Sessions still made it look there is something to hide now by acting like a dummy and he has no one to blame but himself and media spin that was easy to see coming in foresight.

[apeman]

The stupidity here is next level, even if there is nothing to hide, Sessions still made it look there is something to hide now and Jeff has no one to blame but himself and media spin that was easy to see coming in foresight. Those are some lame excuses for such an obvious unforced error.

I agree, this is politics on the big stage, how could he be so sloppy?

I don't know much about Sessions, and what I do know I don't like -- can anyone explain why T picked him/what he brings to the table?

[StCapps]

I agree, this is politics on the big stage, how could he be so sloppy?

I don't know much about Sessions, and what I do know I don't like -- can anyone explain why T picked him/what he brings to the table?

Trump wanted his AG to be tough on immigration, hence Sessions seemed like an obvious choice to enforce the immigration laws that Trump wishes to emphasize. That was the thought at the time.

[apeman]

thanks

[doc_loliday]

Let me ask you, do you find Session's story to be suspicious? Even if you don't, do you think it reasonable that we try to find out if he is telling the truth or not, to find out what may have happened?

As far as I understand it his story goes, "No --" so, mostly based upon my answer to your second question, the answer to your first is, yes.
In regards to your second question, what are "we" hoping to find out? Is it liar, liar, pants on fire, or how Hillary lost because of the Russians?

Hillary lost because she's Hillary and I don't care if the Russians expose corruption in the democratic party. I do care about quid pro quo though. I want to know what is being promised to whom. Moreover, I want to find out if Trump's business in Russia affects his policy decisions. I don't trust Trump for shit, anymore than say, Sessions, or Obama for that matter.