From Russia with love

#2
#2
Now if we can get Valerie Jarrett's correspondents with Iran we can get a clearer picture on things
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#4
#4
Is it possible they were of no significance? These don't sound like they would be top secret and something to hide.

The Justice Department said late Wednesday that one of the discussions between Sessions and Sergey Kislyak was an office visit that occurred in Sessions' capacity as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The second conversation took place in a group setting with other ambassadors following a Heritage Foundation speech.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#6
#6
Yawn. Dem Ruskies rabble rabble. Sing a new song, this one's getting old.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#11
#11
I can't wait when Sessions opens up the Clinton investigation, it will make the Dems have a stroke.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#12
#12
so the contention seems to be based around when he joined Team Trump. Sounds like both of the contacts are nominally explained under the job he had pre Team Trump.

and its really dumb that they are considering one of these "meetings" a social event with a bunch of other people. That's like saying I had a meeting with the mayor Tuesday just because I was at a groundbreaking with him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#14
#14
#VFL__ said:
He lied under oath. So I guess that's about the only reason.

I can't remember is that a crime?
Click to expand...

From the article.

The Justice Department said Wednesday that "there was absolutely nothing misleading about [Sessions'] answer [to Franken]. He was asked during the hearing about communications between Russia and the Trump campaign--not about meetings he took as a senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee."
Click to expand...

So let me get this straight... You guys are up in arms because a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee met with two Russian representatives?

Holy Toledo, Batman, the Dems have become the modern day McCarthys.

What's next? Will they start grilling Hillary for meeting with Russians in her capacity as SecState?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#15
#15
LouderVol said:
so the contention seems to be based around when he joined Team Trump. Sounds like both of the contacts are nominally explained under the job he had pre Team Trump.

and its really dumb that they are considering one of these "meetings" a social event with a bunch of other people. That's like saying I had a meeting with the mayor Tuesday just because I was at a groundbreaking with him.
Click to expand...

So far, all I see is the Dems jumping the shark with all of this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#16
#16
The Justice Depoartment said Wednesday that "there was absolutely nothing misleading about [Sessions'] answer [to Franken]. He was asked during the hearing about communications between Russia and the Trump campaign--not about meetings he took as a senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee."
Click to expand...

hopefully someone talked to the editor about that little slip up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#17
#17
Obsessed said:
I looked. I couldn't find the thread you started or participated in *****ing about bill or Hillary lying under oath. Which is a crime, no?

So "y'all" includes you....
Click to expand...

Um that's because I was in middle school when Bill lied. Both Bill and Hillary are criminals and lied soooo this is me *****ing about them lying.

Also, I'm not *****ing about Jefferson. I just responded to someone asking why it's necessary to discuss. You seem to be super snowflakely today. Sorry this discussion caused you problems. If you need a safe space, just let me know and I'll refrain from discussing issues that may or may not be a big deal.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#18
#18
session spoke with many ambassadors from many countries since it was part of his duties as a committee member. you marxists are really grasping straws.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#19
#19
joevol320 said:
session spoke with many ambassadors from many countries since it was part of his duties as a committee member. you marxists are really grasping straws.
Click to expand...

The issue is not that he had contact with any of these people. He may have for whatever reason mislead congress about those conversations or he may have not lied at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#20
#20
#VFL__ said:
Um that's because I was in middle school when Bill lied. Both Bill and Hillary are criminals and lied soooo this is me *****ing about them lying.

Also, I'm not *****ing about Jefferson. I just responded to someone asking why it's necessary to discuss. You seem to be super snowflakely today. Sorry this discussion caused you problems. If you need a safe space, just let me know and I'll refrain from discussing issues that may or may not be a big deal.
Click to expand...
I'm anything but a snowflake. I just don't like the hypocrisy. If you are going to point out an issue of concern then by all means do it across the board.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#21
#21
Obsessed said:
I'm anything but a snowflake. I just don't like the hypocrisy. If you are going to point out an issue of concern then by all means do it across the board.
Click to expand...

This is a given? I'm not on team red or blue so please check your preconceived notions and instead engage in an interesting conversation.

If you feel like he didn't mislead or lie, then let's talk about that. Not something that's totally irrelevant
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#23
#23
#VFL__ said:
The issue is not that he had contact with any of these people. He may have for whatever reason mislead congress about those conversations or he may have not lied at all.
Click to expand...

Here's my question... If there is no issue with contact with Russians, and both sides are clear on the fact that no laws would have been broken by contact or conversations, then why even ask?

Why would Stewart Smalley even ask if he'd met with Russians if everyone knows there would have been nothing wrong with him meeting with Russians?

Do you think that the question was so needlessly broad that Sessions answered as though it was asked in a narrow manner that would have actually mattered? As in, he gave the benefit of the doubt that Smalley actually meant: "Did you meet with the Russians about the election?"

And if Smalley did mean it so broadly, and everyone admits meetings would have been cool. Why shouldn't I view this as just a big witch hunt that is nothing more than an opportunity to create problems for Trump? i.e. delegitimatize him or create a scandal by cover-up for something that shouldn't have even been an issue at the time anyway?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#24
#24
Orange_Crush said:
Here's my question... If there is no issue with contact with Russians, and both sides are clear on the fact that no laws would have been broken by contact or conversations, then why even ask?

Why would Stewart Smalley even ask if he'd met with Russians if everyone knows there would have been nothing wrong with him meeting with Russians?

Do you think that the question was so needlessly road that Sessions answered as though it was asked in a narrow manner that would have actually mattered? As in, he gave the benefit of the doubt that Smalley actually meant: "Did you meet with the Russians about the election?"

And if Smalley did mean it so broadly, and everyone admits meetings would have been cool. Why shouldn't I view this as just a big witch hunt that is nothing more than an opportunity to create problems for Trump? i.e. legitimatize him or create a scandal by cover-up for something that shouldn't have even been an issue at the time anyway?
Click to expand...

Very solid questions and a witch hunt is exactly what this will turn into. I'm very concerned with Russia and their interests/intentions with our affairs. The man is in a very high position and that's why they vet them extensively. His conversations with the ambassador were probably very innocuous but at this point, who even knows? I do believe he knowingly withheld this information.
 
#25
#25
#VFL__ said:
Very solid questions and a witch hunt is exactly what this will turn into. I'm very concerned with Russia and their interests/intentions with our affairs. The man is in a very high position and that's why they vet them extensively. His conversations with the ambassador were probably very innocuous but at this point, who even knows? I do believe he knowingly withheld this information.
Click to expand...

I believe that you are incorrect, and it is already a witch hunt. As of now, I see this as a play directly from the "1984" playbook. If you can't hang them on their actions, hang them on their vocabulary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top