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

[Oreo]

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?

Nope it's just another conspiracy theory.

Trump surrogates put this language in the Republican platform during the RNC Convention in July. Just a note--these people came forward (after) Michael Flynn and Jeff Sessions got busted for lying.

Gordon had advocated for language in the GOP platform that the Ukrainians not be armed in their battle against pro-Russian separatists, an effort was ultimately successful. But Gordon says he was simply advocating what Trump himself had expressed -- that he did not wish to see major war break out over the situation in Ukraine.

More Trump advisers disclose meeting with Russia's ambassador - CNNPolitics.com

Hillary Clinton was NOT at the RNC convention---:lol:

Paul Manafort-just two weeks ago was forced by the DOJ to register as a foreign agent--receiving 17 million from the Russians to advise on US policy regarding the Ukraine.
Paul Manafort retroactively registers with Justice Dept. as foreign agent - CBS News

John McCain wanted to know why that clause was installed in the Republican platform in July.

 

[bubbabgone]

They lied about everything. So I won't be believing them now. Here is a timeline of their lies.
.....

Nope it's just another conspiracy theory.

Trump surrogates put this language in the Republican platform during the RNC Convention in July. Just a note--these people came forward (after) Michael Flynn and Jeff Sessions got busted for lying.


.....

Hillary Clinton was NOT at the RNC convention---:lol:

Paul Manafort-just two weeks ago was forced by the DOJ to register as a foreign agent--receiving 17 million from the Russians to advise on US policy regarding the Ukraine.
.....

John McCain wanted to know why that clause was installed in the Republican platform in July.
.....

I wasn't talking to you, but answer my questions and I will clear up your confusion on your cut&pastes that have withered to nothing after showing such promise to those eager to believe they had staying power.

 

[American]

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?

I see, and what did Eric Holder do? Seems the Dems were okay with him.

 

[JasperL]

I see, and what did Eric Holder do? Seems the Dems were okay with him.

"he did it too, ma" isn't a compelling defense. Sorry. And even if the defense and the red herring was persuasive, which it's not, I'm not aware of Holder running defense in any investigation of Obama. Please cite the example you're referring to. Thanks.

Edit to add that if you find such an example, are you asserting that because Holder did it too, that we cannot worry about it with Trump? And I assume that if you know Holder corruptly influenced investigations, that wasn't a problem, because your defense implies that corruptly influencing investigations isn't the issue, really, it's whether the corruption (with Trump) is different in manner or scale than corruption under Obama. Or maybe we should expect our AG to corruptly protect the POTUS and so examples of it happening deserve a big, collective, public shrug?

It's a bizarre argument. Desperate and illogical, IMO, but certainly bizarre.

 

[American]

"he did it too, ma" isn't a compelling defense. Sorry. And even if the defense and the red herring was persuasive, which it's not, I'm not aware of Holder running defense in any investigation of Obama. Please cite the example you're referring to. Thanks.

Edit to add that if you find such an example, are you asserting that because Holder did it too, that we cannot worry about it with Trump? And I assume that if you know Holder corruptly influenced investigations, that wasn't a problem, because your defense implies that corruptly influencing investigations isn't the issue, really, it's whether the corruption (with Trump) is different in manner or scale than corruption under Obama. Or maybe we should expect our AG to corruptly protect the POTUS and so examples of it happening deserve a big, collective, public shrug?

It's a bizarre argument. Desperate and illogical, IMO, but certainly bizarre.

You failed to answer my question. I asked you what did Holder do?

 

[Mach]

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.

So the investigation is the fault of Trump for picking Sessions? Are you sure you mean that?

Americans do not get to choose if they are investigated or not. If you don't agree with that, I find it hard to imagine you really support any sort of free democratic society.

 

[American]

So the investigation is the fault of Trump for picking Sessions? Are you sure you mean that?

Americans do not get to choose if they are investigated or not. If you don't agree with that, I find it hard to imagine you really support any sort of free democratic society.

Sessions wasn't forthcoming with his meetings with Russians.

 

[JasperL]

You failed to answer my question. I asked you what did Holder do?

I did answer it. If you have a point about Holder, make it, cite your example. It's not my job to make your argument about the misdeeds of Holder.

After you're done citing your example, you can tell us all why "He did it too, Ma!" works as a defense for Trump when it fails for kids in kindergarten.

 

[American]

I did answer it. If you have a point about Holder, make it, cite your example. It's not my job to make your argument about the misdeeds of Holder.

After you're done citing your example, you can tell us all why "He did it too, Ma!" works as a defense for Trump when it fails for kids in kindergarten.

You didn't answer.

 

[Winston]

I did answer it. If you have a point about Holder, make it, cite your example. It's not my job to make your argument about the misdeeds of Holder.

After you're done citing your example, you can tell us all why "He did it too, Ma!" works as a defense for Trump when it fails for kids in kindergarten.

Conservative hangups about Eric Holder are sad. Fast and Furious, Holder, something, something, a hah!

I was discussing an article from the Intercept on facebook, and a butt hurt Trumper barreled into the comments, screaming about Fast and Furious. The Intercept article was not partisan. It was about the trajectory of China on the world stage. But, this Trumper could not handle anything that didn't say Trump is waving his magic wand and creating jobs, while making China suck our *****.

So, anyway, I guess it's just a common talking point. Embedded in Conservatives psyches is a hatred for the Obama Admin. and Holder especially. They've been conditioned into thinking that the Democrats are the apex of corruption and shadiness, and the GOP is the shining party of paladins. So, yeah, but, something, something, Holder! Is a common talking point. It's nonsense but, very common nonsense.

 

[Mach]

Sessions wasn't forthcoming with his meetings with Russians.

So it's Sessions fault for the investigations and not the liberals? If I were Sessions I'd call bull**** on your claim anyway.
Trump KNEW about Flynn, from multiple sources and he hired him anyway. For Trump to suggest he'd have acted different with Sessions is absurd. Throwing his loyalists under the bus...what a despicable "leader". How low can this party get.

The reality is that Russia meddled in our election, and there is a veritable mountain of circumstantial and some hard evidence, that Trump's campaign colluded with them, which necessitates an investigation.

Trump doesn't get to choose whether he's investigated or not, that would be a breach of everything that is good about checks and balances and a fair, impartial, justice department.
For you or any Republican to support that, is the lowest I've seen on the forums yet.

 

[JasperL]

You didn't answer.

Okee dokee. Nice discussion. Your "He did it too, but I cannot/won't cite my 'both sides' example, Ma!" defense noted and rejected as nonsense.

 

[American]

So it's Sessions fault for the investigations and not the liberals? If I were Sessions I'd call bull**** on your claim anyway.
Trump KNEW about Flynn, from multiple sources and he hired him anyway. For Trump to suggest he'd have acted different with Sessions is absurd. Throwing his loyalists under the bus...what a despicable "leader". How low can this party get.

The reality is that Russia meddled in our election, and there is a veritable mountain of circumstantial and some hard evidence, that Trump's campaign colluded with them, which necessitates an investigation.

Trump doesn't get to choose whether he's investigated or not, that would be a breach of everything that is good about checks and balances and a fair, impartial, justice department.
For you or any Republican to support that, is the lowest I've seen on the forums yet.

If you have evidence of collusion, present it here.

 

[American]

Okee dokee. Nice discussion. Your "He did it too, but I cannot/won't cite my 'both sides' example, Ma!" defense noted and rejected as nonsense.

You never did say what Holder did as AG? How about other AGs, maybe you know what they did?

 

[Oreo]

I wasn't talking to you, but answer my questions and I will clear up your confusion on your cut&pastes that have withered to nothing after showing such promise to those eager to believe they had staying power.

You have ask for right question for an answer--but I won't address conspiracy theories and physco-babble--that you're more than likely parroting from a right wing talk show host.

 

[JasperL]

You never did say what Holder did as AG? How about other AGs, maybe you know what they did?

Again, if you have a point, "what Holder did as AG" or others did, and believe it relates somehow to Trump, just make it. Holder did a lot of things. I have no idea what your point is or which acts you think are relevant.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

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.

Sessions was an important advisor to trump's campaign.

 

[bubbabgone]

You have ask for right question for an answer--but I won't address conspiracy theories and physco-babble--that you're more than likely parroting from a right wing talk show host.

... what was the said in any conversation that would indicate Russian collusion?

 

[Oreo]

... what was the said in any conversation that would indicate Russian collusion?

It's much better than who said something--this one is in writing via an email.

In the emails, an intermediary offers Trump Jr a meeting with a “Russian government attorney” to pass “ultra sensitive” information as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr Trump”. Trump Jr replies: “If it’s what you say I love it.” For the full text of emails you can go to this link.


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...rump-jr-emails-full-text-russia-rob-goldstone

 

[bubbabgone]

It's much better than who said something--this one is in writing via an email.

In the emails, an intermediary offers Trump Jr a meeting with a “Russian government attorney” to pass “ultra sensitive” information as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr Trump”. Trump Jr replies: “If it’s what you say I love it.” For the full text of emails you can go to this link.


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...rump-jr-emails-full-text-russia-rob-goldstone

I know what the emails said.
I knew it a couple of weeks ago.
I asked for evidence of collusion of the campaign with the Russians.
Now or then, that wasn't it.

 

[Oreo]

I know what the emails said.
I knew it a couple of weeks ago.
I asked for evidence of collusion of the campaign with the Russians.
Now or then, that wasn't it.

At minimum the emails are conspiracy to commit collusion. You're not going to convince me or anyone else that all this contact between Trump surrogates and the Russian ambassador including Russian intelligence agents was because they were trading cookie recipes. Russians can't vote nor make campaign donations--and there was absolutely no rational reason for this much communication between them during the campaign season.



What makes it even worse is they continually denied any contact with Russians during the campaign season.
Kushner contradicts Trump team's denials of Russia contacts - CNNPolitics.com

 

[bubbabgone]

At minimum the emails are conspiracy to commit collusion. You're not going to convince me or anyone else that all this contact between Trump surrogates and the Russian ambassador including Russian intelligence agents was because they were trading cookie recipes. Russians can't vote nor make campaign donations--and there was absolutely no rational reason for this much communication between them during the campaign season.



What makes it even worse is they continually denied any contact with Russians during the campaign season.
Kushner contradicts Trump team's denials of Russia contacts - CNNPolitics.com

The context for the questions and responses about Russia meetings was collusion.

Suppose Trump had a phone call with Kislyak in July '16' and said to him ...
"After my election I have more flexibility."
And Kislyak had responded ...
"I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir, and I stand with you."

I suppose you'd think that was conspiracy to commit collusion.

 

[bluesmoke]

[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.

The flim-flan man. God rest his soul, George C. Scott could not have played this better.

 

[Oborosen]

No, it's not "politics like always." This is not normal and it's harmful accepting it as normal. We never had a president that was so ignorant (he seemed not to know the difference between health insurance and life insurance or what major provisions were in his own party's health plan); or not only a habitual liar, who lies the way other people breathe -- with a complete absence of effort, without even trying to tell the truth; he has no moral compass -- acts and lies to further his own personal wealth and position, without regard to the nation.

Those character flaws have brought him to the point where it's becoming clearer and clearer that his campaign collaborated with a hostile foreign power to win the election. That action is not only unpatriotic, but likely illegal. Worse, it leads to wondering what the Russians have on Trump and what American policies have been and will be compromised. To date, this president has taken no action to prevent such interference in the future -- making it a known that Russia will try to affect future other elections.

The ongoing investigations are a response to legitimate concerns about malfeasance, illegal and unethical behavior -- not "politics like always."

Okay right there, did you see it. The very first section of you're post could be likened to more than several of the other candidates that ran for office, not to mention any other office that is up for a seat to be filled. Weather its a publicly announced seat or not, they all match up just as much. Not to mention you speak it as though it were fact that something even happened with Russia & Trump, without even trying to admit that the same thing was possibly going on with the other candidates running for president as well. Its that kind of cherry picking that makes dealing with this kind of nonsense a complete and total waste of time.

Since you are so keen to mention Trump's failings, lets pull up one of many that Hillary had? (just as comparison)
How about espousing that you stand so strongly for women's rights, and then turn around to take money for you're election run. "Taken from highly suspect sources I might add" Straight peoples who's ruling bodies treat woman as second class citizens, or even worse in some cases. Not to mention the kinds of treatment they tend towards people of different faiths, and sexual orientations.

Because I honestly find it strange when Liberals are more than willing to overlook those simple facts, while I am standing here at the very least willing to admit that the president should un-stitch himself from Twitter once in a while.

 

[MTAtech]

Okay right there, did you see it. The very first section of you're post could be likened to more than several of the other candidates that ran for office, not to mention any other office that is up for a seat to be filled. Weather (sic) its a publicly announced seat or not, they all match up just as much. Not to mention you speak it as though it were fact that something even happened with Russia & Trump, without even trying to admit that the same thing was possibly going on with the other candidates running for president as well. Its that kind of cherry picking that makes dealing with this kind of nonsense a complete and total waste of time.

Since you are so keen to mention Trump's failings, lets pull up one of many that Hillary had? (just as comparison)
How about espousing that you stand so strongly for women's rights, and then turn around to take money for you're (sic) election run. "Taken from highly suspect sources I might add" Straight peoples who's ruling bodies treat woman as second class citizens, or even worse in some cases. Not to mention the kinds of treatment they tend towards people of different faiths, and sexual orientations.

Because I honestly find it strange when Liberals are more than willing to overlook those simple facts, while I am standing here at the very least willing to admit that the president should un-stitch himself from Twitter once in a while.

A) Yeah, the GOP had a number of crazies in the primary besides Trump.
B) Collusions in one form or another has been established at this point. It's only a matter now of assessing degree.
C) Hillary Clinton did not take campaign contributions from "highly suspect sources." If you are referring to the Clinton Foundation accepting donations from the Saudis, you need to separate all the mush that you bunch together. The Clinton Foundation isn't Clinton's personal money not is it an arm of their campaign. So, when you claim that said donations were from "highly suspect sources" to her campaign, it what you are charging would be illegal (taking money from foreigners for a U.S. campaign). So, I really think you don't know what you are writing about and I advise that you turn off Hannity and Rush.