THE ERA OF TRUMP

[apeman]

White House Admits Kushner Had Previously Undisclosed Meeting With Russian Ambasador

[TheReal_ND]

Did he lie? I'm under the impression he didn't. He was asked under the context of the Trump campaign right?

This applies to McCaskill too, it's not partisan.

Way to dodge the question lolberg shill.
(.02 'don't step on snek flags' have been deposited in your account)

[apeman]

Did he lie? I'm under the impression he didn't. He was asked under the context of the Trump campaign right?

This applies to McCaskill too, it's not partisan.

Way to dodge the question lolberg shill.
(.02 'don't step on snek flags' have been deposited in your account)

I have no idea if he lied, I have put zero effort into it, I post on this forum super quick between doing actual work.

From the excerpt you posted in the other thread which I just looked at, assuming that is the whole thing, my quick impression is clearly designed to mislead, likely not perjury

[Okeefenokee]

More like fans of honesty and tired of fake news..

Everybody is tired of fake news and misinformation. Yet some of us seem to believe that 100% of it is directed against their 'side'.

Like you ever passed on an opportunity to parrot fake news. Your comment about the speech the other night was a word for word copy and paste from cnn. You the fuck you trying to convince? No one here is buying except penner, and the last thing you need is her backing you up.

[Okeefenokee]

That doesn't change what he said.

No, but it damn sure shows there was more context than you've shown. Get out of here with your fake news. We've got plenty with the current crowd.

[Okeefenokee]

That doesn't change what he said.

OMFG

He met with an ambassador in his capacity as a senator. All of them do this. It's their fucking job. Does Washington Compost have evidence he was meeting with the Russian ambassador to discuss Trump's campaign or relay secret information between the two parties, or is it just more bullshit innuendo and fake fake fake bullshit?

One has to wonder why he lied about it then. But at the very least, we can move past that he lied, and onto why he lied.

More fake news. ^^^^

Nice of you to stop by and hurl falsehoods around. Ok, bye now. See you next time.

[Okeefenokee]

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.

Hey look, penner got a sex change.

[kybkh]

Below you will see confirmed and proven falsehoods concerning Obama and Holder re: Fast and Furious.

Now, I am not saying one wrong make a right. What I am saying is that in order for anything Trump has done in so far as "working with the Russians" is far less egregious than what was done by Obama and Holder.


"I think it's important for us to understand that the Fast and Furious program was a field-initiated program begun under the previous administration," the president said. "When Eric Holder found out about it, he discontinued it. We assigned a inspector general to do a thorough report that was just issued, confirming that in fact Eric Holder did not know about this, that he took prompt action and the people who did initiate this were held accountable."

In actuality, the Fast and Furious program was started in October 2009, nine months into the Obama presidency."]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... istration/

[Penner]

Vox has an interesting Q&A with Richard Painter (a Bush ethics lawyer) and here are some highlights from that article (FYI, Tara Golshan is the one asking the questions and Richard Painter is the one answering them):

Tara Golshan
What have you made of the White House’s response to this? You were the ethics lawyer under the Bush administration — are they following the guidance you would have given in this situation?

Richard Painter
I don’t see much of a response. They are blowing it off. It’s very clear President Trump needs to immediately find out who in his campaign had any communications with the Russians about anything. Find out what those communications were to the best of his ability and find out who in the administration knew what the Russians were doing. He needs to support a thorough inquiry, not a cover-up — that is the mistake Nixon made with Watergate.

Their public comments have been atrocious so far. They keep accusing CNN of fake news; then the spokesperson for the Kremlin accuses CNN of fake news. What we are seeing is the White House putting themselves on the same page as the Kremlin, when they [the Russians] have been spying on the United States and attacked our democratic system in 2016. That is a terrible posture they are in. They need to do a complete reversal here.

Don’t cover it up. Get the people out that collaborated with the Russians, have a thorough investigation. If there is something that Putin has that is embarrassing to Donald Trump, just tell it to us. They certainly shouldn’t be repeating phrases like “fake news” that are being repeated by the Kremlin to attack the American media. That is exactly the wrong approach.

Tara Golshan
How much weight should be placed on partisanship here? That’s the argument the White House is making, after all — that this is a witch hunt.

Richard Painter
I have been a Republican for decades, and the one thing that Republicans and Democrats should have in common is concern about our national security. And in particular the attempts by Russia over the decades — going back to the 1920s — to subvert our government by supporting extremist groups like the American Communist Party, or now white supremacist groups.

This is not a Democratic and Republican issue, and figuring out who in our government is cooperating with the Russians is of the utmost importance. We certainly don’t need a McCarthy-type witch hunt, and this shouldn’t be abused for political purposes, but it’s a critically important issue, and Democrats and Republicans can be united on this. And I certainly don’t think the Republican Party should become a pro-Putin party. If it is, we are going to have sort ourselves out.

and...

T

ara Golshan
How do you understand Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s Senate testimony and the reports that followed?

Richard Painter
He said they had not had talks with Russians during the political campaign. And now he says, well, what he meant to say was that he had not had contact with the Russians to discuss the political campaign. But that’s not what he said.

And if he had contact with the Russians as a United States senator, as a member of the Armed Services Committee, he needed to disclose that and qualify that answer. Then of course he would have had to answer questions about what those conversations were. I will add that it is unusual for a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee to be conducting these types of unilateral discussions with the Russian ambassador. And I think we can rest assured that the Russians have very detailed notes of these conversations or tape recordings of them.

[Sessions] misled the Senate, and the Senate was entitled to find out about the communications with the Russians.

Tara Golshan
Would you say Jeff Sessions committed perjury, or is there some wiggle room?

Richard Painter
This is one of those situations where the testimony was highly misleading. Whether or not it amounts to perjury is debatable. Of course, we had a situation with President Clinton 20 years ago where he was never prosecuted for perjury even though he gave a highly misleading testimony in a civil deposition.

The difference here, of course, is that this is a matter of extreme national importance — what the Russians are doing in the United States and who’s been contacting the Russians. Whereas the president’s personal sex life is not of importance at all to the American people. [But] there are still consequences of such actions, particularly when it comes to issues of national security.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/ ... ia-scandal

[TheReal_ND]

a Bush ethics lawyer

Dropped

tldr

lol