Russia, Jeff Sessions
POSTED BY: THGRRI
UPDATED: Monday, August 31, 2026 21:52
VIEWED: 14056
PAGE 2 of 13
The other 25 senators on Jeff Sessions's committee say they had no meetings with Russian ambassador in 2016. A strange coincidence if the meeting wasn’t about Trump. Obviously that doesn’t prove anything on its own. But the timing of Sessions’s meetings with Kislyak also call Sessions’s story into question. One was a chat after a Heritage Foundation event held concurrently with the Republican National Convention in Cleveland — the whole point of conventions is to talk about the campaign. The other happened on September 8 — the day after Trump delivered widely panned remarks praising Vladimir Putin at an NBC forum hosted by Matt Lauer.
Trump maintains that he has full confidence in Sessions, but Trump also professed full confidence in Michael Flynn just hours before Flynn was fired for lying about his own talks with Kislyak.
www.vox.com/2017/3/2/14794646/sessions-kislyak-senate-armed-services
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I forget which one, but one of those meeting SECOND happened 3 days after Obama read Putin the riot act for his behavior. I believe that took place face to face but I forget where.
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
The other 25 senators on Jeff Sessions's committee say they had no meetings with Russian ambassador in 2016. A strange coincidence if the meeting wasn’t about Trump. Obviously that doesn’t prove anything on its own. But the timing of Sessions’s meetings with Kislyak also call Sessions’s story into question. One was a chat after a Heritage Foundation event held concurrently with the Republican National Convention in Cleveland — the whole point of conventions is to talk about the campaign. The other happened on September 8 — the day after Trump delivered widely panned remarks praising Vladimir Putin at an NBC forum hosted by Matt Lauer.
Trump maintains that he has full confidence in Sessions, but Trump also professed full confidence in Michael Flynn just hours before Flynn was fired for lying about his own talks with Kislyak.
www.vox.com/2017/3/2/14794646/sessions-kislyak-senate-armed-services
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
---------------------
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
I forget which one SECOND, happened 3 days after Obama read Putin the riot act for his behavior. I believe that took place face to face but I forget where.
Face to face. Was Putin standing on a bucket?
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
I forget which one SECOND, happened 3 days after Obama read Putin the riot act for his behavior. I believe that took place face to face but I forget where.
Face to face. Was Putin standing on a bucket?
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Step stool.
---------------------
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, much ado about nothing. Trump gave a good speech and ... as sure as night follows day ... the deep state comes up with yet another pointless reason to crank up the old BUT RUSSIA! meme. Good grief.
I was trying to imagine a similar scenario (shoe on other foot) to put this in context for myself.
Imagine that Hillary won. Imagine that there is an investigation of SAUDI influence on the campaign. There are all of those Saudi contributions to the Foundation. There is her history of advocating foreign policies in the Mideast which really didn't benefit the USA or the EU, but benefited the Saudis quite a bit! There is her aide (Abedin) and supporter (Brennan) who have had decades-long, CLOSE ties with Saudi Arabia.
So her AG ... let's assume its (one of my least favorite Senators) Dianne Feinstein ... is heading an investigation into the Saudi's possible influence on the election. But she is a former Senator, and Defense Appropriations Committee member, and during that time she met with the Saudi Ambassador twice ... once at a weapons conference where she met with many other Ambassadors, and once in an in-office meeting. And she had testified that as an early supporter of Hillary she had not met with the Saudi Ambassador.
What would be my response?
Well, I would HOPE that I would be objective enough look at the context and content of the meetings. That conference ... is irrelevant. There's no time or opportunity to meet with anyone longer than to say "Hi, good to see you" and "'Bye, see you later", and if you DO step aside to have a lengthy private chat, well.... everybody notices.
The in-office meeting is more troubling. How long was it? Did the Ambassador have other business in the area, or did this seem to be a single-purpose visit? Did anyone else attend, or was it really private? Were there any other items to be discussed at the time involving Dianne as a member of the Defense Subcommittee - weapons purchases, for example?
Was there any opportunity for Senator Feinstein to actually influence the campaign in any meaningful way?
More importantly, what should Dianne do? Resign?
Now, I personally feel that occasional or incidental meetings with Ambassadors of other countries couldn't possibly influence an election. I would be more concerned about Hillary's very visible record of benefiting the Saudis, plus the enduring ties between some of her top supporters with Saudi Arabia, plus those Foundation contributions. Feinstein seems to be a unimportant piece in this particular scenario, but just to avoid the impression of a conflict of interest recusal would really help.
That's what happened, and I'm good with that.
All this huffing and puffing by Democraps is just propaganda.
-----------
"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR IS A DEEP-STATE TROLL
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Oh, much ado about nothing. Trump gave a good speech and ... as sure as night follows day ... the deep state comes up with yet another pointless reason to crank up the old BUT RUSSIA! meme. Good grief.
I was trying to imagine a similar scenario (shoe on other foot) to put this in context for myself.
Imagine that Hillary won.
Subjective bullshit SIG. How about you stop imagining and join with those of us here who live in the world of reality. Hillary didn't win. You can not argue against facts with fantasy. We keep telling you that but you don't listen.
Fact, once again one of Trumps cabinet is caught lying about having contact with the Russians during the campaign. Fact, he did it while under oath.
---------------------
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:THUGR, I'm just trying to separate my EMOTIONAL response from my ethical one, by imagining someone I truly dislike in the same situation to see whether I'm being even-handed. Like the thread where I was trying to draw a direct comparison between the Syrian situation and the Ukrainian one, but nobody wanted to engage in that. But you should try it sometime, it really does clarify things.
How about you stop imagining and join with those of us here who live in the world of reality. Hillary didn't win.
Quote:Fact is, he prefaced his answer with a comment about not being a "surrogate" for Trump, and he was answering in THAT context. I've been deposed a couple of times, and testified a couple of times, and your answers are somewhat conditioned by the questions that came before, and which concerns you think you're answering. I can see that happening and it's clear from Sessions' answer that's what he had in mind. It could be instructive to hear the preceding five questions or so.
Fact, once again one of Trumps cabinet is caught lying about having contact with the Russians during the campaign. Fact, he did it while under oath.
But I see that you're defending the deep state again, which is what they pay you for, I guess.
-----------
"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR IS A DEEP-STATE TROLL
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:
T
How about you stop imagining and join with those of us here who live in the world of reality. Hillary didn't win.
quote SIG
THUGR, I'm just trying to separate my EMOTIONAL response from my ethical one, by imagining someone I truly dislike in the same situation to see whether I'm being even-handed. Like the thread where I was trying to draw a direct comparison between the Syrian situation and the Ukrainian one, but nobody wanted to engage in that. But you should try it sometime, it really does clarify things.
Fact, you're trying to deflect ( hey look over here ), with subjective bullshit as you always do. You say you want to be even handed. Then stick to the facts. Fantasy doesn't get you to the truth.
Quote:
T
Fact, once again one of Trumps cabinet is caught lying about having contact with the Russians during the campaign. Fact, he did it while under oath.
Quote:
SIG
Fact is, he prefaced his answer with a comment about not being a "surrogate" for Trump, and he was answering in THAT context.
Fact, he didn't do that when he was testifying. He suggested that on occasion he was thought of that way. And when he meet with the Russian Ambassador the first time in Cleveland, he was traveling at the Trump campaigns expense. Therefore he was acting as a surrogate and representing the campaign at that time.
Quote:
SIG
But I see that you're defending the deep state again, which is what they pay you for, I guess.
Really SIG? You post about fantasy and what if's and I stick to the facts. Yet you think it is me defending deep state ( which is another fantasy.) Go to your doctor and get something, anything that will help you with your delusions.
---------------------
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Fact is, he did. In fact, Al Franken's entire question itself mentioned "surrogate". Geez, stop being such a hysteric, you deep-state troll, you.
Fact, he didn't do that when he was testifying.- THUGR
I really don't want this to get buried by THUGR'S bullshit, so I'm gonna re-post. Apologies for the repeat if you've already read it
Quote:
Oh, much ado about nothing. Trump gave a good speech and ... as sure as night follows day ... the deep state comes up with yet another pointless reason to crank up the old BUT RUSSIA! meme. Good grief.
I was trying to imagine a similar scenario (shoe on other foot) to put this in context for myself.
Imagine that Hillary won. Imagine that there is an investigation of SAUDI influence on the campaign. There are all of those Saudi contributions to the Foundation. There is her history of advocating foreign policies in the Mideast which really didn't benefit the USA or the EU, but benefited the Saudis quite a bit! There is her aide (Abedin) and supporter (Brennan) who have had decades-long, CLOSE ties with Saudi Arabia.
So her AG ... let's assume its (one of my least favorite Senators) Dianne Feinstein ... is heading an investigation into the Saudi's possible influence on the election. But she is a former Senator, and Defense Appropriations Committee member, and during that time she met with the Saudi Ambassador twice ... once at a weapons conference where she met with many other Ambassadors, and once in an in-office meeting. And she had testified that as an early supporter of Hillary she had not met with the Saudi Ambassador.
What would be my response?
Well, I would HOPE that I would be objective enough look at the context and content of the meetings. That conference ... is irrelevant. There's no time or opportunity to meet with anyone longer than to say "Hi, good to see you" and "'Bye, see you later", and if you DO step aside to have a lengthy private chat, well.... everybody notices.
The in-office meeting is more troubling. How long was it? Did the Ambassador have other business in the area, or did this seem to be a single-purpose visit? Did anyone else attend, or was it really private? Were there any other items to be discussed at the time involving Dianne as a member of the Defense Subcommittee - weapons purchases, for example?
Was there any opportunity for Senator Feinstein to actually influence the campaign in any meaningful way?
More importantly, what should Dianne do? Resign?
Now, I personally feel that occasional or incidental meetings with Ambassadors of other countries couldn't possibly influence an election. I would be more concerned about Hillary's very visible record of benefiting the Saudis, plus the enduring ties between some of her top supporters with Saudi Arabia, plus those Foundation contributions. Feinstein seems to be a unimportant piece in this particular scenario, but just to avoid the impression of a conflict of interest recusal would really help.
That's what happened, and I'm good with that.
All this huffing and puffing by Democraps is just propaganda.
-----------
"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR IS A DEEP-STATE TROLL
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME