NYT: Citing Recusal, Trump Says He Wouldn’t Have Hired Sessions

[Oreo]

Are pictures, links, and tldr comments your way of dodging the question I've asked several times?
Here, let me remind you "So are we better off knowing what was in the Podesta emails?"

Here's another question you won't be able to answer.
From what was reported, exactly what were the Russian collusion components of the conversations between Sessions and Kislyak?

That's 2 outstanding (2 ways to take that and both apply) questions for you to dodge.
I suspect you'll take a shot at the second question but it won't be on point.
So I'd call you on your evasion again and have to repeat the questions.
It would go on and on.
So if your intention is to post another epic-sized evasive comment you should not waste your time & bandwidth.

You're the only one that is evasive. Trying to deflect Trump's very serious problems that look to be headed toward impeachment & then try and deflect them onto Podesa's emails is beyond the pale.

It's not working for you. Hillary Clinton and whomever else are GONE--they are no longer in this picture, and all eyeballs are FOCUSED on Trump and his administration.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Then why no special investigator for Bengazhi, the IRS scandal, hillary's private email server, the Fast and Furious gun running affair to mention only a few?

Yeah, why did no one ever look into that Bengazhi bidness.

 

[bubbabgone]

You're the only one that is evasive. Trying to deflect Trump's very serious problems that look to be headed toward impeachment & then try and deflect them onto Podesa's emails is beyond the pale.

It's not working for you. Hillary Clinton and whomever else are GONE--they are no longer in this picture, and all eyeballs are FOCUSED on Trump and his administration.

Someone else raised Hillary's problems a bunch of comments ago, I responded then about Sessions and political tactics, you joined in then, and bailed on it since then.
It was you who brought up Assange and now you're complaining that you did.

Anyway, Hillary and Podesta's emails are relevant because, regarding tactics, I said "One very rewarding opposition strategy has always been to make the mundane look unsavory and draw distinctions with the same behavior by their own team."
And it's the practice you've been following.

But regardless, there's no reason you can't tell me the Russian collusion parts of the conversations between Sessions and Kislyak, is there?
That's certainly on topic ... even yours.

 

[Oreo]

Someone else raised Hillary's problems a bunch of comments ago, I responded then about Sessions and political tactics, you joined in then, and bailed on it since then.
It was you who brought up Assange and now you're complaining that you did.

Anyway, Hillary and Podesta's emails are relevant because, regarding tactics, I said "One very rewarding opposition strategy has always been to make the mundane look unsavory and draw distinctions with the same behavior by their own team."
And it's the practice you've been following.

But regardless, there's no reason you can't tell me the Russian collusion parts of the conversations between Sessions and Kislyak, is there?
That's certainly on topic ... even yours.

The point is that Sessions LIED about his contacts with the Russian ambassador and what was said during those contacts. Michael Flynn did the same thing, Trump Jr. lied, Jerad Kushner lied by not disclosing foreign contacts on his National Security Clearance form 86.
Flynn reportedly lied to FBI about sanctions talk with Russian envoy | Fox News
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/politics/jared-kushner-russians-security-clearance.html?_r=0



Sessions 1st lie

Attorney General Jeff Sessions had two contacts with Russian envoy Sergey Kislyak during the presidential campaign, Justice Department officials confirmed. The Washington Post first reported the meetings Wednesday. When he was asked in his confirmation hearing what he would do if there was evidence anyone associated with Donald Trump’s presidential campaign had communicated with the Russians, Sessions replied that he wasn’t aware of any such “activities,” and added, “I did not have communications with the Russians.” A questionnaire he filled out for the committee also asked whether he had had contact with the Russians, to which Sessions, according to the Post, wrote, “No.”

Jeff Sessions spoke twice with Russian envoy during presidential campaign: Department of Justice - CBS News

The 2nd lie from Sessions:

Russia’s ambassador to Washington told his superiors in Moscow that he discussed campaign-related matters, including policy issues important to Moscow, with Jeff Sessions during the 2016 presidential race, contrary to public assertions by the embattled attorney general, according to current and former U.S. officials.
Ambassador Sergey Kislyak’s accounts of two conversations with Sessions — then a top foreign policy adviser to Republican candidate Donald Trump — were intercepted by U.S. spy agencies, which monitor the communications of senior Russian officials in the United States and in Russia. Session intially failed to disclose his contacts with Kislyak and then said that the meetings were not about the Trump campaign.Attorney General Jeff Sessions spoke twice with the Russian ambassador to the U.S. last year, when he was a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a prominent supporter of then-candidate Donald Trump, according to the Justice Department.The disclosure, which appears to contradict Mr. Sessions’ testimony during confirmation hearings, added fuel to the push for a special prosecutor to investigate Russian meddling in the presidential election and possible links to President Trump’s campaign, and sparked new calls for Mr. Sessions to recuse himself from the ongoing FBI probe. Mr. Sessions on Thursday disputed the characterization that he lied when he told Congress he had not been in contact with Russian officials.“I never met with any Russian officials to discuss issues of the campaign. I have no idea what this allegation is about. It is false,” Mr. Sessions said in a statement. (Sessions stated this UNDER OATH during a congressional hearing for his appointment as AG.)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ml?tid=pm_politics_pop&utm_term=.2629e4ff2bde

Usually when people are continually lying it's because they have something to hide.

But you'll be able to turn on Sean Hannity tomorrow--he'll have all this information regurgitated for you and will be able to spoon feed it back to you in the news you WANT to hear. So you have nothing at all to worry about--:lol:

 

[Athanasius68]

[h=1]Citing Recusal, Trump Says He Wouldn’t Have Hired Sessions[/h]
There are to things that strike me here:

1) That's rather insulting for a president to say that he's sorry that he hired the guy who is now his Attorney General.
2) That Trump wouldn't hire Sessions, because he recused himself due to a conflict of interest. Really? DT really wanted a AG that would make decisions while having a direct conflict of interest. Why is it unfair to the president for the AG to recuse himself over Russia unless the president expected favorable treatment?

Trump also threatened to fire Mueller in this interview and has nasty things to say about him.

You just can't make this stuff up.

1. Maybe so.
2. There was no conflict of interest. There was no criminal investigation occurring. Nothing for Sessions to recuse himself from.
3. Mueller has limitless power in this investigation. Which Trump is justifiably annoyed about.

 

[Athanasius68]

There has never been a President in this nations history that was so naive and frankly stupid enough to make enemies out of the 3 most powerful agencies in this country. The media, our intelligence agencies and now the DOJ.

The more he calls the media FAKE, the more they will write and report. The more he insults our intelligence agencies, stating that Russia is just a "ruse" the more he implicates himself into a coverup and the deeper they will dig. Recently he has been threatening DOJ officials with firing, and rumors are about that he is planning to fire Special Prosector Robert Mueller.

So why do you think this was leaked TODAY? :lol: I'll tell you when John McCain stated last week that more shoes were going to drop on this after the Trump's Jr. meeting of last week--he really meant a torrential rain of shoes.

Hang on a second here:
The Department of Justice, the intelligence agencies are not some independent bureaucracies. A president is allowed to "target" those departments. Those departments are not allowed to reciprocate.

 

[MTAtech]

Hang on a second here:
The Department of Justice, the intelligence agencies are not some independent bureaucracies. A president is allowed to "target" those departments. Those departments are not allowed to reciprocate.

If that "targeting" is to abuse Trump's power and halt those agencies investigating him, rather than allow investigation into this scandal to proceed, that's obstruction of justice.

 

[Athanasius68]

If that "targeting" is to abuse Trump's power and halt those agencies investigating him, rather than allow investigation into this scandal to proceed, that's obstruction of justice.

The note I responded to referenced specifically timed leaks. Trump us correct to be upset behind this, and to want it stopped.

 

[MTAtech]

1. Maybe so.
2. There was no conflict of interest. There was no criminal investigation occurring. Nothing for Sessions to recuse himself from.
3. Mueller has limitless power in this investigation. Which Trump is justifiably annoyed about.

1) Conflict if interest doesn't require a criminal investigation.
2) you have no idea whether a criminal investigation is underway or not.
3) The FBI reports to the Justice Dept., which Sessions heads. Since Sessions admitted he took part in the Russian contacts, he rightly recused himself from matters relating to that investigation.
4) Trump is "annoyed" that Mueller, as part of the Russian investigation, is following the money -- as he should be doing. Trump seems to be that Mueller will uncover something on Trump's finances. While Trump is justified to be annoyed that Mueller is investigating Trump's finances, Trump isn't justified to hinder Mueller's investigation into his finances.

 

[Athanasius68]

1) Conflict if interest doesn't require a criminal investigation.
2) you have no idea whether a criminal investigation is underway or not.
3) The FBI reports to the Justice Dept., which Sessions heads. Since Sessions admitted he took part in the Russian contacts, he rightly recused himself from matters relating to that investigation.
4) Trump is "annoyed" that Mueller, as part of the Russian investigation, is following the money -- as he should be doing. Trump seems to be that Mueller will uncover something on Trump's finances. While Trump is justified to be annoyed that Mueller is investigating Trump's finances, Trump isn't justified to hinder Mueller's investigation into his finances.

1. It doesn't mean there is one if not.
2. It was a counter/intelligence operation, not a criminal one. Should it turn into one, at that point there would be a good argument that Sessions ought recuse himself.
3. Sessions admitted he contacted Russians in his capacity as a Senator.
4. Mueller was appointed to investigate collusion, not Trumps finances. The mandate has gone far astern. Trump is LEGALLY permitted to "hinder" Mueller's investigation into the finances (by prohibiting such an investigation). Politically, at this point it would be a disaster.

 

[MTAtech]

The note I responded to referenced specifically timed leaks. Trump us correct to be upset behind this, and to want it stopped.

Yes, I know. There have been leaks about Trump Admin malfeasance and collusion. So, instead of being upset about the malfeasance and collusion, Trump is upset that the information got out.

 

[cabse5]

The stupid that pours out of that man's mouth has no end.

Why stupid? In this case, Trump realizes the Mueller investigation will uncover all for whatever reason and Sessions could've prevented this. By the time the Mueller investigation is over, for example, we'll know unrelated information to the Russian scandal of the 2016 election like Trump's tax returns.

Moral of this story? Congress should establish a law that demands any investigation have a distinguishable purpose and limit the investigation to that purpose.

 

[Parrish]

By "hinder" do you mean he can legally commit a crime which would be obstruction of justice?

 

[MTAtech]

1. It doesn't mean there is one if not.
2. It was a counter/intelligence operation, not a criminal one. Should it turn into one, at that point there would be a good argument that Sessions ought recuse himself.
3. Sessions admitted he contacted Russians in his capacity as a Senator.
4. Mueller was appointed to investigate collusion, not Trumps finances. The mandate has gone far astern. Trump is LEGALLY permitted to "hinder" Mueller's investigation into the finances (by prohibiting such an investigation). Politically, at this point it would be a disaster.

I am going to ignore 1-3 because they aren't as important. If the collusion points to Trump's finances, that's in scope. It's like investigating the Watergate break-in and being stopped at following the money from the burglars -- that lead to the Nixon White House.

If your intent is not to uncover anything that would show Trump was involves, your narrative works. I, for one, think that the American people want to know if their president colluded to win the election and now owes Putin favors.

 

[bubbabgone]

The point is that Sessions LIED about his contacts with the Russian ambassador and what was said during those contacts. Michael Flynn did the same thing, Trump Jr. lied, Jerad Kushner lied by not disclosing foreign contacts on his National Security Clearance form 86.
...

If you don't know what was said you don't know if anything was a lie.
So, I ask again, what was the said in any conversation that would indicate Russian collusion?

 

[MTAtech]

If you don't know what was said you don't know if anything was a lie.
So, I ask again, what was the said in any conversation that would indicate Russian collusion?

There was an email trail. Now, the emails may not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Trump camp was willing to accept help from a hostile government, but we're getting pretty damn close.
Trump senior and Junior had prior said nobody ever met with the Russians. That seems not to be true.

 

[bubbabgone]

There was an email trail. Now, the emails may not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Trump camp was willing to accept help from a hostile government, but we're getting pretty damn close.
Trump senior and Junior had prior said nobody ever met with the Russians. That seems not to be true.

The context about the meetings was Russian collusion.
Half of Congress and Hillary & Bill met with Russians while she was SofS. Were they colluding with Russia?
Claire McCaskill was all over Kislyak and she denied it. I think we've been over this already, haven't we? Was Claire colluding for Hillary?

The question(s) to Oreo was about what was said in those conversations that showed Russian collusion.
No fair helping him ... he can continue to evade on his own.

 

[MTAtech]

The context about the meetings was Russian collusion.
Half of Congress and Hillary & Bill met with Russians while she was SofS. Were they colluding with Russia?
Claire McCaskill was all over Kislyak and she denied it. I think we've been over this already, haven't we? Was Claire colluding for Hillary?

The question(s) to Oreo was about what was said in those conversations that showed Russian collusion.
No fair helping him ... he can continue to evade on his own.

Sorry, that's obfuscation. HRC wasn't meeting with Russians to undermine Trump's campaign. The State Dept meetings with Russian officials is official business and there is a record of the meeting.

Trump Jr., according to the email, was meeting with Russian officials to pass damaging information obtained by the Russians. There is no defense of that. They first denied that a meeting occurred and then, after that lie was discovered, changed the story to nothing of consequence was discussed. Then, the email emerged that is prime evidence of collusion.

The question to ask is why are you so bent on defending this unpatriotic and possibly illegal action?

 

[Athanasius68]

By "hinder" do you mean he can legally commit a crime which would be obstruction of justice?

It's a question of terminology. A scope of a special prosecutor is usually defined by Congress and president.
Some people could define such restrictions as "hindering."

 

[Athanasius68]

I am going to ignore 1-3 because they aren't as important. If the collusion points to Trump's finances, that's in scope. It's like investigating the Watergate break-in and being stopped at following the money from the burglars -- that lead to the Nixon White House.

If your intent is not to uncover anything that would show Trump was involves, your narrative works. I, for one, think that the American people want to know if their president colluded to win the election and now owes Putin favors.

It seems like it's working backward. Looking for evidence of a crime that nobody has quite defined.

 

[bubbabgone]

Sorry, that's obfuscation. HRC wasn't meeting with Russians to undermine Trump's campaign. The State Dept meetings with Russian officials is official business and there is a record of the meeting.

Trump Jr., according to the email, was meeting with Russian officials to pass damaging information obtained by the Russians. There is no defense of that. They first denied that a meeting occurred and then, after that lie was discovered, changed the story to nothing of consequence was discussed. Then, the email emerged that is prime evidence of collusion.

The question to ask is why are you so bent on defending this unpatriotic and possibly illegal action?

Oh dear. I think this could be a long road for both of us.
I say that because I have to believe you already know what I'm going to tell you but you opened yourself up for it.
Remember ... "One very rewarding opposition strategy has always been to make the mundane look unsavory and draw distinctions with the same behavior by their own team."
I suspect you're about to satisfy the second part.

Anyway, here goes ...

The DNC met with Ukraine officials with ties to the Kremlin to undermine Trump.
The Dossier was littered with Kremlin and DNC wet dreams, read into the Congressional transcription of hearings, and payment was traced back to Democrat backers.
Hillary was part of Obama's cadre who allowed Kremlin tied Uranium One to buy 20% of USA uranium ... then Bill got half a mill of Russian sourced $ for a speech. As SofS Hill had many dealings with foreign entities who donated to her Foundation while paying Bill for speeches. The Clinton's corruption is boundless but those are Kremlin related so I mentioned them.

Someone you respect said not log ago that the question to ask is why are you so bent on defending these unpatriotic and possibly illegal actions?

 

[American]

[h=1]Citing Recusal, Trump Says He Wouldn’t Have Hired Sessions[/h]
There are to things that strike me here:

1) That's rather insulting for a president to say that he's sorry that he hired the guy who is now his Attorney General.
2) That Trump wouldn't hire Sessions, because he recused himself due to a conflict of interest. Really? DT really wanted a AG that would make decisions while having a direct conflict of interest. Why is it unfair to the president for the AG to recuse himself over Russia unless the president expected favorable treatment?

Trump also threatened to fire Mueller in this interview and has nasty things to say about him.

You just can't make this stuff up.

You got it backwards, Trump wouldn't have hired him if he'd known he had a conflict of interest. Here we have this huge investigation, and his AG has to sit on his hands.

 

[JasperL]

Why stupid? In this case, Trump realizes the Mueller investigation will uncover all for whatever reason and Sessions could've prevented this. By the time the Mueller investigation is over, for example, we'll know unrelated information to the Russian scandal of the 2016 election like Trump's tax returns.

Moral of this story? Congress should establish a law that demands any investigation have a distinguishable purpose and limit the investigation to that purpose.

So, you mean that if, say, an investigation into something like Benghazi uncovered unrelated issues related to a private email server, that the investigators would be unable to follow that lead? Like that?

 

[JasperL]

You got it backwards, Trump wouldn't have hired him if he'd known he had a conflict of interest. Here we have this huge investigation, and his AG has to sit on his hands.

I think the problem with Trump's comments is he clearly thinks the job of AG in that situation would be to protect the POTUS in that investigation. Or at least that interpretation fits with what he did with Comey.

Or to put it another way, if Sessions didn't recuse himself, what would Trump expect him to do with regard to the (then) FBI investigation? If not shut it down or limit it, then what or how would Sessions have fundamentally altered it in a way that suits Trump?

 

[Oreo]

If you don't know what was said you don't know if anything was a lie.
So, I ask again, what was the said in any conversation that would indicate Russian collusion?

They lied about everything. So I won't be believing them now. Here is a timeline of their lies.
Kushner contradicts Trump team's denials of Russia contacts - CNNPolitics.com