Sessions is a liar

Senator King nailed the AG that he was not being truthful when the President never exercised executive privilege. It is very convenient to talk with the President, and then claim it was the letter that caused sessions to recommend comey should be fired. This guy is a worm.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/13/politics/jeff-sessions-testimony-executive-privilege/index.html?sr=fbCNN061317jeff-sessions-testimony-executive-privilege1130PMStoryLink&linkId=38670292

"...I am not stonewalling..." Yes, Jeff, that's exactly what you're doing.

He's a punk because of his progressive drug war... but it was clear that there's no there there. The leftist Russia narrative is dead in the water. Maybe the dnc will let y'all know to concentrate on real issues soon.

Lol... kidding KIDDING. Y'all keep running as fast as able in a tiny little circle waving arms yelling la la la.

PkrBum wrote:He's a punk because of his progressive drug war... but it was clear that there's no there there. The leftist Russia narrative is dead in the water. Maybe the dnc will let y'all know to concentrate on real issues soon.

Lol... kidding KIDDING. Y'all keep running as fast as able in a tiny little circle waving arms yelling la la la.

"Progressive drug war" is an oxymoron.

"Real issues" include the fact that there's a narcissistic sociopath in the White House.

Jeff Sessions Insists He’s Not ‘Stonewalling’ By Not Answering Questions

“I am protecting the right of the president to assert [executive privilege] if he chooses,” he said.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sessions-testimony-stonewalling_us_59404fcae4b0d318548592d2?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Jeff%20Sessions%20Insists%20Hes%20Not%20Stonewalling%20By%20Not%20Answering%20Questions%202017-06-13T220101402Z&utm_content=Jeff%20Sessions%20Insists%20Hes%20Not%20Stonewalling%20By%20Not%20Answering%20Questions%202017-06-13T220101402Z+CID_ff1078e67e6c97c72b0b985354eedd29&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=Read%20More&ncid=newsltushpmgnewsJeff%20Sessions%20Insists%20Hes%20Not%20Stonewalling%20By%20Not%20Answering%20Questions%202017-06-13T220101402Z

Since when is it Sessions job to protect Trump? I thought he was the AG for the country... not Trump.

PkrBum wrote:He's a punk because of his progressive drug war... but it was clear that there's no there there. The leftist Russia narrative is dead in the water. Maybe the dnc will let y'all know to concentrate on real issues soon.

Lol... kidding KIDDING. Y'all keep running as fast as able in a tiny little circle waving arms yelling la la la.

It's a fact that Russia used hackers to try to interfere with our election. It's also a fact that a whole lot of people from Trump's team had contact with them, and Trump even invited them from the podium to hack into Hillary. Now, whether there was actual collusion between Trump's people and the Russians is still undetermined... but your willingness to give them a pass on that is pretty disturbing.

You've just made up your mind -- based on nothing but your own wishes -- that there's nothing to it, and you're not even curious enough to see if Democracy's being threatened or not.

I understand what you wish the outcome would be, and that's fine, but just tossing off looking into it is alarmingly stupid and unpatriotic. Republicans should be as concerned about this as Democrats. Just because it benefited your side this time doesn't make it a thing you should be comfortable with happening.

It's nothing new that they try to interfere in our processes... just like we do with theirs.

But beyond that... let's take measure of it. How many votes were compromised?

PkrBum wrote: It's nothing new that they try to interfere in our processes... just like we do with theirs.

But beyond that... let's take measure of it. How many votes were compromised?

I don't know how many votes were compromised, because apparently no hacking of voting machines worked. But do you dismiss an attempted murder because the gunman had bad aim? "Let the guy go, he didn't hit anybody, so, no big deal. Attempted murder's nothing new, why worry about it?" That's a ridiculous attitude if you're concerned with the integrity of our country's processes.

The pertinent question is how many votes were influenced because the Russians hacked and released confidential information that could make people decide to change their vote. That's a point you seem either incapable of understanding or want to willfully ignore. Meddling in an election doesn't begin and end at voting machines. And we have no way to measure how much of a factor that was, but, it was certainly a factor -- there's no way it didn't influence who people voted for. And it's foreign meddling in our election as surely as hacking Diebold would've been.

We don't know that the Russians hacked the dnc. They didn't allow the fbi access to the evidence.

Sooo... how many votes were "influenced"? If you don't know then it's just another dnc talkingpoint.

Comey himself said there was "no fuzz" on the idea that the Russians hacked the election. That's factual, no wiggle room. And if you think releasing the info they released had no effect, you're ridiculous.

If you're still in any denial about that, you're a truly special kind of idiot, in the company of people like 9/11 "truthers," Holocaust deniers, flat-earthers, Sandy Hook "false-flaggers," and people who think the moon landing was a sound stage.

"Election vote tallies were not hacked or altered." Comey

Comey: “In the case of the DNC, we did not have access to the devices themselves. We got relevant forensic information from a private party….a high-class entity that had done the work. But, we didn’t get direct access.”

Burr: “But no content?”

Comey: “Correct.”

Burr: “Isn’t content an important part of the forensics from a counter-intelligence standpoint?”

Comey: “It is, although, what was briefed to me at the time by my folks, the people who were my folks at the time, is that they had gotten the information from the private party, that they needed to understand the intrusion by the spring of 2016.”

And AGAIN you're pretending that direct hacking of voting machines was the only way Russians could have meddled with the election!

I give up, you're too fucking stupid to discuss anything with. I tried, but if you're going to be that willfully obtuse, then just keep believing what you want, wrong as it is.

zsomething wrote:And AGAIN you're pretending that direct hacking of voting machines was the only way Russians could have meddled with the election!

I give up, you're too fucking stupid to discuss anything with.  I tried, but if you're going to be that willfully obtuse, then just keep believing what you want, wrong as it is.

Pull your head out of your ass and maybe you could hear the fact that there's no evidence of harm done.

None... zip... zero. Until that changes you're just being triggered by the dnc and complicit media.

PkrBum wrote:We don't know that the Russians hacked the dnc. They didn't allow the fbi access to the evidence.

Sooo... how many votes were "influenced"? If you don't know then it's just another dnc talkingpoint.

How many times does someone have to tell you the Russians hacked the DNC? The f'ing FBI contacted the DNC and told them. Why can't you get anything right?

Vikingwoman wrote:

PkrBum wrote:We don't know that the Russians hacked the dnc. They didn't allow the fbi access to the evidence.

Sooo... how many votes were "influenced"? If you don't know then it's just another dnc talkingpoint.

How many times does someone have to tell you the Russians hacked the DNC? The f'ing FBI contacted the DNC and told them. Why can't you get anything right?

Read this very slowly... maybe 3 or 4 times:

Comey: “In the case of the DNC, we did not have access to the devices themselves. We got relevant forensic information from a private party….a high-class entity that had done the work. But, we didn’t get direct access.”

The party their talking about work for the dnc with numerous ties... I've listed those too.

What you and comey are doing is taking the dnc's word... not good enough for an objective person.

zsomething wrote:And AGAIN you're pretending that direct hacking of voting machines was the only way Russians could have meddled with the election!

I give up, you're too fucking stupid to discuss anything with.  I tried, but if you're going to be that willfully obtuse, then just keep believing what you want, wrong as it is.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN!

After three rounds of furious flyweight slugging, the unanimous decision is PkrBoy by a TKO.  

In an unusual move, The Kid came out of his corner and just laid down on the canvas like a bitch.

The ringside scribblers and newshounds are all saying he just doesn't have what it takes to post serious responses. He's been bested and embarrassed by an illiterate buffoon and it doesn't look like he'll ever be able to go the distance.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/lobbyist-for-russian-interests-says-he-attended-dinners-hosted-by-sessions/ar-BBCJb1p?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=U348DHP

An American lobbyist for Russian interests who helped craft an important foreign policy speech for Donald Trump has confirmed that he attended two dinners hosted by Jeff Sessions during the 2016 campaign, apparently contradicting the attorney general’s sworn testimony given this week.

dumpcare wrote:http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/lobbyist-for-russian-interests-says-he-attended-dinners-hosted-by-sessions/ar-BBCJb1p?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=U348DHP

An American lobbyist for Russian interests who helped craft an important foreign policy speech for Donald Trump has confirmed that he attended two dinners hosted by Jeff Sessions during the 2016 campaign, apparently contradicting the attorney general’s sworn testimony given this week.

Interesting, dump --thanks for posting. It's all looking pretty muddy right now.

del.capslock wrote:

zsomething wrote:And AGAIN you're pretending that direct hacking of voting machines was the only way Russians could have meddled with the election!

I give up, you're too fucking stupid to discuss anything with.  I tried, but if you're going to be that willfully obtuse, then just keep believing what you want, wrong as it is.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN!

After three rounds of furious flyweight slugging, the unanimous decision is PkrBoy by a TKO.  

In an unusual move, The Kid came out of his corner and just laid down on the canvas like a bitch.

The ringside scribblers and newshounds are all saying he just doesn't have what it takes to post serious responses. He's been bested and embarrassed by an illiterate buffoon and it doesn't look like he'll ever be able to go the distance.

If you really think making the same argument over and over again to somebody who's either incapable or unwilling to understand it is a good use of your time -- and maybe in your case it is since you appear to have nothing else to do -- then, have at it. Frankly, I think I won by not wasting any more of my time on a moron, and spent it talking to someone more intelligent elsewhere. It was like yelling at a lamp post. Someone like you might feel some great victory in arguing down PkrBoy because that's the best you're capable of, but, that's you. Most people have less to prove than you do.

zsomething wrote:
If you really think making the same argument over and over again to somebody who's either incapable or unwilling to understand it is a good use of your time -- and maybe in your case it is since you appear to have nothing else to do -- then, have at it.   Frankly, I think I won by not wasting any more of my time on a moron, and spent it talking to someone more intelligent elsewhere.   It was like yelling at a lamp post.   Someone like you might feel some great victory in arguing down PkrBoy because that's the best you're capable of, but, that's you.  Most people have less to prove than you do.

The point is to NOT make the same argument over and over again. Arguing with a dolt like  PkrBoy is just a game of wits, you can never hope to convince him of the rightness of your point of view or even get him to understand it, for that matter. The best you can do is to vex, bedevil, perplex and confound him until HE quits.

That's the rule: The person who talks last, who gets the last word in, WINS! Weren't you ever married, ferchrissakes? Jesus, women, to their mighty credit, understand this simple fact of life from birth.

But, you're right about one thing: right now, I don't have anything better to do. I sold my business and am in between "situations" right now. Or maybe I'm retired, I dunno. One or the other til something else comes along or my ticker or my liver gives out.

Whatever...   this amuses me for the time being. You got a problem with that?

del.capslock wrote:

zsomething wrote:
If you really think making the same argument over and over again to somebody who's either incapable or unwilling to understand it is a good use of your time -- and maybe in your case it is since you appear to have nothing else to do -- then, have at it.   Frankly, I think I won by not wasting any more of my time on a moron, and spent it talking to someone more intelligent elsewhere.   It was like yelling at a lamp post.   Someone like you might feel some great victory in arguing down PkrBoy because that's the best you're capable of, but, that's you.  Most people have less to prove than you do.

The point is to NOT make the same argument over and over again. Arguing with a dolt like  PkrBoy is just a game of wits, you can never hope to convince him of the rightness of your point of view or even get him to understand it, for that matter. The best you can do is to vex, bedevil, perplex and confound him until HE quits.

That's the rule: The person who talks last, who gets the last word in, WINS! Weren't you ever married, ferchrissakes? Jesus, women, to their mighty credit, understand this simple fact of life from birth.

But, you're right about one thing: right now, I don't have anything better to do. I sold my business and am in between "situations" right now. Or maybe I'm retired, I dunno. One or the other til something else comes along or my ticker or my liver gives out.

Whatever...   this amuses me for the time being. You got a problem with that?

Fine if it amuses you, but, honestly, I don't give a shit. I'm just discussing things here, I'm not playing some "gotcha" game or going by your rules of who "wins" or "loses" discussions. What you've got to understand is... you don't interest me, and I couldn't care less what your rules are, or if you approve or disapprove of something I do. I don't think much of you, mostly based on the way you treat others here, so your approval means nothing to me, much less your disapproval. And I'm not trying to vex or bedevil anyone, because, who cares? It's no great achievement walloping a dumb person, or making a stranger mad. That's really juvenile to me, so when a topic gets boring or I see time's being wasted at the expense of doing something more interesting, I'll toss it aside. I've got so much other stuff to do it's crazy, so why take time away from reading or watching a movie or writing a story or an e-mail to someone I actually like just to get the last word on some doofus, who probably isn't really going to care if they got "got" or not? I'd lose more than I gained from "winning."

I don't have a problem with that being your life. I would, however, feel like a huge loser if it were mine. So, some arguments I just give a "whatever" and move on from 'em. Like I'll give this one now. If you feel like the last word means you "win," then, "win" and see what good it does you. But it matters not to me.

zsomething wrote:

What you've got to understand is... you don't interest me, and I couldn't care less what your rules are, or if you approve or disapprove of something I do.

Then why did you bother responding to my post?

I guess you're still struggling to recognize irony and satire. Here's a hint: You're not really supposed to eat the Irish babies.

del.capslock wrote:

zsomething wrote:

What you've got to understand is... you don't interest me, and I couldn't care less what your rules are, or if you approve or disapprove of something I do.

Then why did you bother responding to my post?

I guess you're still struggling to recognize irony and satire. Here's a hint: You're not really supposed to eat the Irish babies.

I responded because I felt like it and thought maybe if I told you flat-out you'd find some pride somewhere and quit trying to get my attention all the time like some jilted girl. I knew by replying I'd probably be setting myself up for the ol' "if you don't care, why'd you reply? Ha HA!" triumphant-four-year-old gambit. And of course you didn't disappoint. So, touché or whatever, I guess. Feel clever.

You sure like to congratulate yourself on your satirical skills for some reason. I used to teach Swift's works in grad school, so, yeah, I know about the modest-proposal stuff; it was brilliant when he innovated it, but that was the 18th century and it's become entry-level now. Mostly, though, it's just that you're really not very good at it. As Swifts go your wit's not up to the level of Taylor, much less Jonathan. But, you obviously amuse you a great deal, so, carry on.