Liberal Forum

#ShePersisted » 02 Mar 2017 1:40 pm » wrote:

Whoopsy, Looks Like Jeff Sessions Lied Under Oath About Talking To The Russians!

Non story.

Sessions denied discussing the campaign with the Russians yesterday. "I never met with any Russian officials to discuss issues of the campaign," he said in a statement. "I have no idea what this allegation is about. It is false." But Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Flores told reporters that Sessions spoke with Kislyak during the Republican National Convention and Kislyak met with Sessions in the senator's office one other time last year. Flores described the meeting as "short and informal." Sessions was a senior member with the Armed Services Committee at the time, as well as a Trump campaign surrogate.

larryc12 » 02 Mar 2017 8:20 am » wrote:And you and ol' Rachel are going to gleefully decide what "seriously mentally ill" IS, i.e., "Doc, I've been having bad dreams."

No Larry.
It would be the Social Security Administration who has deemed that these people have a mental disorder so severe that they cannot work and need a representative to manage their benefits.
Not me, and not Rachel Maddow.
That sounds a little more serious than just having 'bad dreams.'

Maybe you should do a little research before you open your piehole.

#ShePersisted » 02 Mar 2017 1:50 pm » wrote: No Larry.
It would be the Social Security Administration who has deemed that these people have a mental disorder so severe that they cannot work and need a representative to manage their benefits.
Not me, and not Rachel Maddow.
That sounds a little more serious than just having 'bad dreams.'

Maybe you should do a little research before you open your piehole.

This has already been debunked. But the snowflakes need material.

Huey » 02 Mar 2017 1:47 pm » wrote:Non story.

Sessions denied discussing the campaign with the Russians yesterday. "I never met with any Russian officials to discuss issues of the campaign," he said in a statement. "I have no idea what this allegation is about. It is false." But Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Flores told reporters that Sessions spoke with Kislyak during the Republican National Convention and Kislyak met with Sessions in the senator's office one other time last year. Flores described the meeting as "short and informal." Sessions was a senior member with the Armed Services Committee at the time, as well as a Trump campaign surrogate.

First he denied meeting with him.
Then he said he met with him, but couldn't remember what they talked about.
Now he says he remembers that they didn't discuss the campaign.

I don't believe a word out of the mouths of anyone in this administration.
Serial liars, every one of them.

If he only met with him in his capacity as a Senator on the Armed Services Committee, then why didn't he say that in his responses to Senators Franken and Leahy?

And even if he did that, it would be a stupid thing to do while he was a member of the campaign.

So we are to believe that he met with the Russian Ambassador in his office in September when the story about the Russians interfering in the election was front page news, but the subject never came up.

And Bubba and Loretta Lynch only talked about golf and grandkids that day on the tarmac in Arizona.

Huey » 02 Mar 2017 1:52 pm » wrote:This has already been debunked. But the snowflakes need material.

Debunked how?

John Dean on TV just now:
"These people are not acting like somebody trying to flush the truth out and get to the bottom of this.
They're doing exactly the opposite.
They are in a full cover-up mode.
And that's what's drawing more suspicion to them."

I think John Dean knows a little bit about cover-ups.

#ShePersisted » 02 Mar 2017 2:03 pm » wrote: Debunked how?

The type of alleged mental disorders that were included. But if recycling these stories is your bag, go for it.

#ShePersisted » 02 Mar 2017 2:01 pm » wrote: First he denied meeting with him.
Then he said he met with him, but couldn't remember what they talked about.
Now he says he remembers that they didn't discuss the campaign.

I don't believe a word out of the mouths of anyone in this administration.
Serial liars, every one of them.

If he only met with him in his capacity as a Senator on the Armed Services Committee, then why didn't he say that in his responses to Senators Franken and Leahy?

And even if he did that, it would be a stupid thing to do while he was a member of the campaign.

So we are to believe that he met with the Russian Ambassador in his office in September when the story about the Russians interfering in the election was front page news, but the subject never came up.

And Bubba and Loretta Lynch only talked about golf and grandkids that day on the tarmac in Arizona.

Lol! I don't believe a tweeted news report of the sort you use. Anyone with any semblance of intelligence would read Franken's lead up to the question, and how Sessions responded, and understand the question was related to campaign staff or supporters conspiring or colluding with the Russians. That is why he answered as he did. But you propagandists live outside the bounds of honesty. Go ahead, print the entire exchange. You ain't got the integrity to do so.

Common sense based on the question.

Do you have common sense or a semblance of intelligence?

As I said, non story.

Huey » 02 Mar 2017 3:19 pm » wrote: As I said, non story.

Which is why Sessions just recused himself.
It is yet to be determined whether or not this is a non story.

Huey » 02 Mar 2017 3:19 pm » wrote: Lol! I don't believe a tweeted news report of the sort you use. Anyone with any semblance of intelligence would read Franken's lead up to the question, and how Sessions responded, and understand the question was related to campaign staff or supporters conspiring or colluding with the Russians. That is why he answered as he did. But you propagandists live outside the bounds of honesty. Go ahead, print the entire exchange. You ain't got the integrity to do so.

Common sense based on the question.

Do you have common sense or a semblance of intelligence?

As I said, non story.

#ShePersisted » 02 Mar 2017 3:46 pm » wrote: Which is why Sessions just recused himself.
It is yet to be determined whether or not this is a non story.

Like the media she is cherry picking, just as you are doing with the sessions story.


You still don't have the integrity to post the entire exchange between Frankenstein and Sessions.

Don't bother. I'm not going to argue with you. You are a sycophant. I will just sit back and laugh at the discussion as well as mourn the depths our press, and the dumbing down, of Americans has gone.

Don't worry though. He recused himself from the investigation. Don't think he should have, but he did.

The better question is, who DIDN'T meet with Russia?



Kushner and Flynn Met With Russian Envoy in December, White House Says

#ShePersisted » 02 Mar 2017 4:12 pm » wrote:The better question is, who DIDN'T meet with Russia?



Kushner and Flynn Met With Russian Envoy in December, White House Says

I could make the same argument about Claire McCaskill. But as an intelligent individual with common sense I understand the context of her statements.

Huey » 02 Mar 2017 4:02 pm » wrote:You still don't have the integrity to post the entire exchange between Frankenstein and Sessions.

Why? Didn't you hear it?



Even before this came out, just the fact that Sessions was part of the campaign was reason enough for him to recuse himself from any investigations involving the campaign.

#ShePersisted » 02 Mar 2017 4:21 pm » wrote: Why? Didn't you hear it?



Even before this came out, just the fact that Sessions was part of the campaign was reason enough for him to recuse himself from any investigations involving the campaign.

About time. Now go back to my post.

So if you did know this earlier you are dishonest. It is apparent his answer is in the context of the **** about campaign staff and Russians.

Non story and argument over. Can't wait to see your spin on McCaskill.

Huey » 02 Mar 2017 4:02 pm » wrote: You are a sycophant.

You think I'm a servile fawning parasite?

So what would you call someone who believes that it's okay for an Attorney General to head an investigation into a political campaign that he played a major role In?

Like I said, he should have recused himself BEFORE it was revealed that he spoke to the Russian Ambassador.

Huey » 02 Mar 2017 4:21 pm » wrote: I could make the same argument about Claire McCaskill. But as an intelligent individual with common sense I understand the context of her statements.

Was Claire McCaskill part of a campaign that was being helped by the Russians?

Even if all of these meetings with the Russians are totally innocent, they give the appearance of something nefarious going on.
You would think that they would know better.

#ShePersisted » 02 Mar 2017 5:19 pm » wrote: Was Claire McCaskill part of a campaign that was being helped by the Russians?

Even if all of these meetings with the Russians are totally innocent, they give the appearance of something nefarious going on.
You would think that they would know better.

See how sycophants and propagandists frame an issue?

#ShePersisted » 02 Mar 2017 5:15 pm » wrote: You think I'm a servile fawning parasite?

So what would you call someone who believes that it's okay for an Attorney General to head an investigation into a political campaign that he played a major role In?

Like I said, he should have recused himself BEFORE it was revealed that he spoke to the Russian Ambassador.

I'm not arguing. I am laughing.

LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP!

Pence used personal email for state business — and was hacked