|
DesideriScuri -> RE: A-Gen Sessions for the chop? (3/3/2017 7:30:38 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Let's hope for Sessions sake that no one was taping the meeting, and that the meeting notes, which I understand are SOP in these situations, agree with his claim that he didn't discuss "issues of the campaign". Am I correct in recalling that something along these lines was Flynn's first line of defence too? Flynn was sunk by 3rd party tapes of his phone calls with the Russians. I'm sure Sessions has his fingers crossed ....
If it's SOP to tape meetings and keep meeting notes, then I would love to have those made public. That would end the debate once and for all (regardless of what was discussed).
quote:
While this line of defence for Sessions may be plausible, as you point out, is it credible? The Presidential election was the dominant political story in Washington all last year. Could a few political animals (of whatever hue) get together and fail to discuss it? If the conversations were unrelated to the election as Sessions insists, why did he choose to conceal the fact that he met with the Russians on two occasions? It couldn't be the case that he forgot they happened. Why did he feel the need to withhold this information when a simple upfront statement that he met with the Russians but did so in his capacity as a member of the Senate Armed Forces Committee, and only discussed matter relevant to the that committee, would have cleared the air.
Credible? I have no idea. I wasn't claiming it was credible or not... because I have no idea. If he was asked if he met with the Russian Ambassador regarding the Trump campaign (which is what the article I cited claimed), then he doesn't have to divulge that he met with the Ambassador about in any other capacity. That's neither lying, nor wrong. If he was asked if he met with the Russian Ambassador about the Trump campaign, and responded that he never met with the Ambassador about the Trump campaign, what part of that is false?
quote:
The way this story is unfolding is consistent with the pattern of stories about Dear Leader Thump's Russian connections - they come out in dribs and drabs, leaked by disaffected public servants, and often contradicting initial denials from the concerned parties. There's already been a significant political corpse or two. There's no sign of the leaks ceasing or this story going away. Quite the opposite, it seems the political pressure for a special prosecutor is growing and growing.
What signs are there that there is more to come?
quote:
Does anyone believe that we have heard the whole truth about the links between Dear Leader Thump's campaign and Russian officials?
I doubt we'll hear the end of it before Trump is out of the White House. But, like the whole Birther movement, it could all work out to be all wrong.
|
|
|
|
