LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Sessions never received briefing on Russian hacking

someoneyouknow

someoneyouknow

Literotica Guru
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Posts
28,274
"I have to tell you Sen. King, I know nothing but what I've read in the paper," Sessions said to Angus King of Maine. "I've never received any detailed briefing on how hacking occurred or how information was alleged to have influenced the campaign."

The United States Attorney General, the highest law official in the nation, never received nor asked for a briefing on how Russia hacked the presidential campaign. That is the takeaway from his own admission.

Either the man is wholly incompetent for the job or, because of his undisclosed meetings with Russian agents, he's trying to cover up the extent of the hacking. In either case, how can anyone take this man seriously when he doesn't care that a foreign government used multiple means to influence and manipulate our elections?

Had the con artist not won the election and these same revelations came out, one can be assured the howls of indignation and protest would be screaming far and wide for a full and complete investigation. Yet, with all the evidence of hacking and collusion, the attitude is, "Meh. No big deal. We won. That's what matters."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/13/opinions/sessions-testimony-russia-louis-opinion/index.html
 
Every other Senator in that room is better informed than he is, and he used to be a Senator.
 
Sessions explained that since he knew he was going to need to recuse himself that it was decided he would forgo the briefings. Comey confirmed that in his prior statements. I guess you skipped over that part. Of course CNN never reported that as far as i can see, though other sources did.
 
milehighcityman said:
Sessions explained that since he knew he was going to need to recuse himself that it was decided he would forgo the briefings. Comey confirmed that in his prior statements. I guess you skipped over that part. Of course CNN never reported that as far as i can see, though other sources did.
Click to expand...

Don't you know that telling progs facts is useless? They'll just ignore you and continue spewing lies in their zeal to deny reality.
 
I was surprised that no one made the point about him being a former senator who should fully understand democracy's need for checks and balances. Surely during his time in the senate he voiced such an opinion while Obama was president.
 
Funny that as a member of the Armed Services Committee he never talked with the Russians about their interference in the US election.

Has anyone located the written policy Sessions referred to to justify his refusal to answer questions from congress under oath?
 
LincolnDuncan said:
I was surprised that no one made the point about him being a former senator who should fully understand democracy's need for checks and balances. Surely during his time in the senate he voiced such an opinion while Obama was president.
Click to expand...

Do you know this? OIC, you're just making up fake facts and using them to create a false narrative. Again.


LincolnDuncan said:
Funny that as a member of the Armed Services Committee he never talked with the Russians about their interference in the US election.

Has anyone located the written policy Sessions referred to to justify his refusal to answer questions from congress under oath?
Click to expand...

Wow. Haven't you seen the testimony where Sessions ADMITTED that he had a meeting with the Russian Ambassador while still a Senator?

The policy is called Executive Privilege and you can find the basis for it in the US Constitution. It's based on the premise that communications between the President and his staff and administration officials should not be revealed without authorization from the President. The US Supreme Court has determined that such a privilege exists even if not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege
 
HisArpy said:
Do you know this? OIC, you're just making up fake facts and using them to create a false narrative. Again.




Wow. Haven't you seen the testimony where Sessions ADMITTED that he had a meeting with the Russian Ambassador while still a Senator?

The policy is called Executive Privilege and you can find the basis for it in the US Constitution. It's based on the premise that communications between the President and his staff and administration officials should not be revealed without authorization from the President. The US Supreme Court has determined that such a privilege exists even if not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege
Click to expand...

Your comments are really unworthy but I'm feeling generous today. What are you contending that I fabricated? Are you suggesting that I stated that Sessions definitely made such an argument? I think that it's very likely but I did not state my opinion to be fact.

Yes, I have read Sessions swiss cheese testimony. Yes he testified to meeting with the Russian ambassador, but he also testified that he did not discuss with him, Russian meddling in the US election. You must have read the "alt facts" version of his testimony.

As far as executive privilege, as Sessions testified, Executive Privilege is afforded only to the present. Sessions claimed that the Justice Department has a long standing policy to unilaterally extend that courtesy to the president in regard to any conversations with the president. He was unable to identify that policy and was saved by John McCain from answering Senator Harris' question as to why in preparation for his testimony he did not learn the citation for that policy so that he could testify properly. Of course, he was nervous.
 
HisArpy said:
Do you know this? OIC, you're just making up fake facts and using them to create a false narrative. Again.

Wow. Haven't you seen the testimony where Sessions ADMITTED that he had a meeting with the Russian Ambassador while still a Senator?

The policy is called Executive Privilege and you can find the basis for it in the US Constitution. It's based on the premise that communications between the President and his staff and administration officials should not be revealed without authorization from the President. The US Supreme Court has determined that such a privilege exists even if not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege
Click to expand...

So much for executive privilege. To be used sparingly and only when suits.

When an increasingly agitated Senator Angus King drilled Sessions about who requested that the attorney general and his deputy draft memos justifying the formal dismissal of Comey as FBI chief.

"Who asked for your opinion?" King pressed him.

"The president asked for our opinion," Sessions answered.

"All right! So you just testified as to the content of a communication to the president," King said.

The gotcha moment laid bare the shaky rationale Sessions used to dodge certain queries, said Ryan Goodman, an expert on national security who served as a special counsel to the general counsel of the Department of Defence during the Obama administration.

"King was saying, 'Aha! You just talked about a discussion with the president, so you're doing this selectively.' So that's the kind of dance Sessions is doing."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/jeff-sessions-stonewalling-executive-privilege-1.4159421
 
Hard_Rom said:
So much for executive privilege. To be used sparingly and only when suits.

When an increasingly agitated Senator Angus King drilled Sessions about who requested that the attorney general and his deputy draft memos justifying the formal dismissal of Comey as FBI chief.

"Who asked for your opinion?" King pressed him.

"The president asked for our opinion," Sessions answered.

"All right! So you just testified as to the content of a communication to the president," King said.

The gotcha moment laid bare the shaky rationale Sessions used to dodge certain queries, said Ryan Goodman, an expert on national security who served as a special counsel to the general counsel of the Department of Defence during the Obama administration.

"King was saying, 'Aha! You just talked about a discussion with the president, so you're doing this selectively.' So that's the kind of dance Sessions is doing."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/jeff-sessions-stonewalling-executive-privilege-1.4159421
Click to expand...

God, that's pathetic. Revealing that a conversation took place does not reveal the CONTENTS of that conversation. And, it is the contents which are privileged. Sessions did NOT reveal the contents, only that the President asked for his opinion. He did NOT say: "Well, the President said... And, then I said..."
 
phrodeau said:
Every other Senator in that room is better informed than he is, and he used to be a Senator.
Click to expand...

What part of "recuse" and avoidinv contaminating a potential witness is so puzzling to you?

Since he will have absolutely nothing to do with any decisions made on the case why would he need to be briefed on a case that he's not going to have any participation in?

Far as I can tell everybody wanting to be briefed on this is only doing so so they can leak whatever suits there interests.

You are aware aren't you that there aren't any magic details that are not already 100% out in the Press? Granted, somebody who has been adequately briefed would know which stuff in the Press is bull, but nobody seems interested in correcting any of that.
 
Hard_Rom said:
So much for executive privilege. To be used sparingly and only when suits.

When an increasingly agitated Senator Angus King drilled Sessions about who requested that the attorney general and his deputy draft memos justifying the formal dismissal of Comey as FBI chief.

"Who asked for your opinion?" King pressed him.

"The president asked for our opinion," Sessions answered.

"All right! So you just testified as to the content of a communication to the president," King said.

The gotcha moment laid bare the shaky rationale Sessions used to dodge certain queries, said Ryan Goodman, an expert on national security who served as a special counsel to the general counsel of the Department of Defence during the Obama administration.

"King was saying, 'Aha! You just talked about a discussion with the president, so you're doing this selectively.' So that's the kind of dance Sessions is doing."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/jeff-sessions-stonewalling-executive-privilege-1.4159421
Click to expand...

Fast & Furious? The IRS scandal? Benghazi?

Executive privilege never has covered criminal activity.
 
milehighcityman said:
Sessions explained that since he knew he was going to need to recuse himself that it was decided he would forgo the briefings. Comey confirmed that in his prior statements. I guess you skipped over that part. Of course CNN never reported that as far as i can see, though other sources did.
Click to expand...
I'm assuming you can quote the part of his testimony where he said that.
 
milehighcityman said:
Sessions explained that since he knew he was going to need to recuse himself that it was decided he would forgo the briefings. Comey confirmed that in his prior statements. I guess you skipped over that part. Of course CNN never reported that as far as i can see, though other sources did.
Click to expand...
It seems to be taking you a long time to find the quote. Did I assume incorrectly that since you claimed he said it you could provide the quote?
 
about_average said:
It seems to be taking you a long time to find the quote. Did I assume incorrectly that since you claimed he said it you could provide the quote?
Click to expand...

Shallow dig. People have lives and aren't always available to come back to respond. Nor are all people willing to engage in baseless mud slinging contests on an internet forum. To call someone out for that is called bad form.


Sessions was confirmed on 2/8. He then had a meeting with Trump on 2/14 where it was determined that he would probably recuse himself from the investigation. This was ONLY 1 week after his confirmation. 1 week which was filled with the minutia necessary to setting up his tenure as head of the DOJ. Anyone who has ever been through a change of command KNOWS that during the changeover, the commander is NOT on top of things no matter who he is. Depending on the type and complexity of the command, the changeover haze can last for quite awhile.

2 weeks after the conversation on 2/14, Sessions announced that he had recused himself.

These are the FACTS. We KNOW what happened. There's a paper trail.

You can nit pick about "Well, he never actually said that in his testimony" but it makes you look like someone who doesn't understand what happened. On top of that you CANNOT blame him for not knowing what was going on and then say that every other Senator in the room was better briefed while IGNORING commonly known FACTS that he DID recuse himself in a fairly timely manner after realizing he should keep the investigation at arms length.

Facts matter. Nit pick all you want but those are THE FACTS.
 
Sessions did not resign until March 6th.

Trump got briefed in the first week of January, the Senate already knew.

He had three long months to show an iota of curiosity and interest in the Russian interference.

He did not "know he was going to need to recuse himself." He only recused himself, under pressure, when the Wa Po revealed he lied under oath about meeting with Russians. That very day he bowed out. Must have been a coinkydink.

He didn't get briefed because he didn't care, and neither did Trump. They think it's phony and "made up." Comey testified that Trump never asked him a thing about it.


milehighcityman said:
Sessions explained that since he knew he was going to need to recuse himself that it was decided he would forgo the briefings. Comey confirmed that in his prior statements. I guess you skipped over that part. Of course CNN never reported that as far as i can see, though other sources did.
Click to expand...
 
He did say that, without providing dates, without testifying under oath about any of his supposed conversations with the President.

This is his cover story for why he recused himself. Had nothing to do with the WaPo article, nothing at all!

about_average said:
I'm assuming you can quote the part of his testimony where he said that.
Click to expand...
 
I'm picking he perjured himself.

He's a professional politician, a lawyer, and a trumptard. It's almost a forgone conclusion that he's lying through his teeth. Couldn't lie straight in a bed if he tried.
 
Then why was Trump so surprised and enraged that Sessions recused himself (and still is)?

It is no "fact" that he met with Trump on 2/14.

That is all a made up little fictional story to cover for his perjury during the Confirmation Hearings. Lies, lies, and more lies


HisArpy said:
He then had a meeting with Trump on 2/14 where it was determined that he would probably recuse himself from the investigation. .
Click to expand...
 
Carnal_Flower said:
Sessions did not resign until March 6th.

Trump got briefed in the first week of January, the Senate already knew.

And Sessoins was a member of the Senate. Yet you SAID he didn't know anything. Aren't you trying to say 2 things at once here?

He had three long months to show an iota of curiosity and interest in the Russian interference.

Who? Trump? I thought you said SESSIONS. Are you sure you know what you're trying to say here?

He did not "know he was going to need to recuse himself." He only recused himself, under pressure, when the Wa Po revealed he lied under oath about meeting with Russians. That very day he bowed out. Must have been a coinkydink.

He didn't get briefed because he didn't care, and neither did Trump. They think it's phony and "made up." Comey testified that Trump never asked him a thing about it.

I don't remember that testimony. I could be wrong but I don't remember him saying that Trump didn't ask him if the investigation was made up or phony.
Click to expand...

Carnal_Flower said:
Then why was Trump so surprised and enraged that Sessions recused himself (and still is)?

It is no "fact" that he met with Trump on 2/14.

You are correct and I was mistaken. I was thinking the meeting between Trump and Comey was a meeting between Trump and Sessions on the recusal. My error.

That is all a made up little fictional story to cover for his perjury during the Confirmation Hearings. Lies, lies, and more lies
Click to expand...

It's not a "made up little fictional story".

Link to CNN article about Sessions Recusal

There's an image at the end of the above article of the letter Sessions provided for his recusal. In that letter he says:

During the course of the last several weeks, I have met with the relevant senior career Department officials to discuss whether I should recuse myself from any matters arising from the campaigns for President of the United States.
Click to expand...

The letter was dated March 2, 2017. Thus the meetings over "several weeks" mentioned in the letter would HAVE TO BE in February 2017.

These are facts:

Sessions was confirmed on Feb 8th.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/08/politics/jeff-sessions-vote-senate-slog/index.html

As part of his testimony during his confirmation hearings he said that he would recuse himself if he encountered something which would require it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/breakin...s-recused-himself-from-russian-investigation/

Once confirmed he met with people to determine whether he should recuse himself or not over the campaign investigation. On Mar 2nd he did so.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/02/politics/democrats-sessions-russia-resignation-call/index.html


What is so hard to understand about that? According to Sessions he had promised the Senate that he would do so and he kept that promise.

Yet, NOW you say that he didn't care enough to get briefed in an investigation he thought wasn't valid, promised the Senate he wouldn't get involved in, and then recused himself to prevent any conflict of interest in that investigation when it became obvious there would be a potential conflict of interest even if only politically viewed.

At what point did he do anything wrong?
 
HisArpy said:
(edited)

At what point did he do anything wrong?
Click to expand...
He denied having any Russian contacts during his confirmation hearings.

That's a bit worse than falsely claiming Cherokee heritage, isn't it?
 
phrodeau said:
He denied having any Russian contacts during his confirmation hearings.

That's a bit worse than falsely claiming Cherokee heritage, isn't it?
Click to expand...

So exactly what contact did he have? Shake hands at a reception line? In the same room at some function? Have we still not figured out what IS is?
 
mark_j said:
So exactly what contact did he have? Shake hands at a reception line? In the same room at some function? Have we still not figured out what IS is?
Click to expand...
At least one meeting was a private meeting with the Russian ambassador in Sessions' senate office. You can look up the others.
 
HisArpy said:
Shallow dig. People have lives and aren't always available to come back to respond.
Click to expand...
He had time to come back and post about Megyn Kelly plus other threads. Sessions just a bit more important than Kelly.

Nor are all people willing to engage in baseless mud slinging contests on an internet forum..
Click to expand...
Then it's a good thing I didn't sling any mud, eh?
Or do you mean this thread in general? In that case he proved you wrong because he showed he was willing to engage.
I just asked him to provide evidence to support his claim.
 
LMAO

I notice all you freaks, including Trump, like to rely on "Fake News" when you need to be serious and prove facts.

Sadly, the CNN article does not prove you right.

It says:


Earlier Thursday, Sessions bowed to intense political pressure and recused himself from any investigation related to Trump's 2016 presidential campaign.

Sessions acted after it emerged that he had failed at his Senate confirmation hearing to disclose two pre-election meetings with Russia's ambassador to Washington, at a time when Moscow was accused of interfering in the presidential race.
Click to expand...

The real Fake News is the bullshit Sessions dumped into his letter of recusal and his testimony last week, that Oh, it had nothing to do with being caught in a lie, nothing at all, he'd been "considering" it for weeks, nothing to see here, move along.

Made up cover story. He can say anything he wants, but the fact remains:

a. He did not recuse himself UNTIL he got outed in the Wa Po
b. It ENRAGED Trump, who is still insisting that Sessions did nothing wrong and "should not have recused himself."

Donald Trump 'never more upset' with staff than over Jeff Sessions Russia scandal
Mr Trump reportedly went into 'ballistic' rant and 'used lots of expletives'

c. If it was just a routing thing, and Trump knew all about it, why does Trump insist it's all a witch hunt by the Dems to save face after their humiliating loss? Either it was a routine, expected thing he knew all about, or it's part of the Dem conspiracy


HisArpy said:
It's not a "made up little fictional story".

Link to CNN article about Sessions Recusal

There's an image at the end of the above article of the letter Sessions provided for his recusal. In that letter he says:



The letter was dated March 2, 2017. Thus the meetings over "several weeks" mentioned in the letter would HAVE TO BE in February 2017.

These are facts:

Sessions was confirmed on Feb 8th.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/08/politics/jeff-sessions-vote-senate-slog/index.html

As part of his testimony during his confirmation hearings he said that he would recuse himself if he encountered something which would require it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/breakin...s-recused-himself-from-russian-investigation/

Once confirmed he met with people to determine whether he should recuse himself or not over the campaign investigation. On Mar 2nd he did so.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/02/politics/democrats-sessions-russia-resignation-call/index.html


What is so hard to understand about that? According to Sessions he had promised the Senate that he would do so and he kept that promise.

Yet, NOW you say that he didn't care enough to get briefed in an investigation he thought wasn't valid, promised the Senate he wouldn't get involved in, and then recused himself to prevent any conflict of interest in that investigation when it became obvious there would be a potential conflict of interest even if only politically viewed.

At what point did he do anything wrong?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Bodington
A Foreign Policy Discussion
2
Replies
28
Views
769
Politruk
P
Rightguide
The Intel Report That Shredded the CIA's Russian Collusion Narrative
Replies
9
Views
578
IrezumiKiss
IrezumiKiss
deckardB26354
You’re just going to have to explain it to me…(Trump Edition)
7 8 9
Replies
201
Views
5K
Politruk
P
Rightguide
Yes Obama, Biden, Lynch, Comey All Knew Russian Collusion Was a Lie Invented By Clinton
Replies
9
Views
405
schism666
schism666
gxnn
Art for War's Sake
Replies
21
Views
796
gxnn
gxnn
Back
Top