President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[creekster]

No, but this isn't a criminal investigation, it's an inquiry as to fitness for an appointment by exploring conflicts, etc. His candor is expected. Like I said- he could have wrapped it up at the hearings rather than evade or shut down the line of questioning.

When I posted that I had not read Franken's question, which I just did. I still think that his response to Leahy's question was accurate (assuming, again, that he did not talk about the 2016 campaign) but in context his response to Franken was not very responsive (he never said what he would do if he was aware of an official having contact) and in that meandering response he actually created a larger context where he should have been more forthcoming. His failure to do so was at best misleading. Given that we know he had contacts in that time frame, I cant imagine how he can not recuse himself. If he doesn't recuse himself he will never be able to put this away. This said, after reading the questions and answers I think the demands for his resignation are premature and I think that it may be time for Pelosi to be quiet for the democrats' own good.

[PaloAltoCougar]

When I posted that I had not read Franken's question, which I just did. I still think that his response to Leahy's question was accurate (assuming, again, that he did not talk about the 2016 campaign) but in context his response to Franken was not very responsive (he never said what he would do if he was aware of an official having contact) and in that meandering response he actually created a larger context where he should have been more forthcoming. His failure to do so was at best misleading. Given that we know he had contacts in that time frame, I cant imagine how he can not recuse himself. If he doesn't recuse himself he will never be able to put this away. This said, after reading the questions and answers I think the demands for his resignation are premature and I think that it may be time for Pelosi to be quiet for the democrats' own good.

I agree with that. It's a problem for the administration, but some on the left may be overplaying their hand, just as some of the Repubs would often do with Obama and Hillary. It's sort of entertaining to see all the role reversals.

[Walter Sobchak]

I thought of you when I found this article. It's starting to look like Trump is probably going to be a lot more hawkish in general than he talked during the campaign.

North Korea:
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/t...085908841.html

Not to mention Trump's "moderate" Defense Secretary has already brought us to the brink of war with Iran. No, not good news. Bernie was probably the anti-war advocate's best bet.

[Walter Sobchak]

I agree with that. It's a problem for the administration, but some on the left may be overplaying their hand, just as some of the Repubs would often do with Obama and Hillary. It's sort of entertaining to see all the role reversals.

Reminds me of something I read in The Nation last week:

If the seething mainstream of the Democratic Party, and the neoconservative warmongers succeed in taking down Trump’s détente policy and who knows whom among its advocates, the already distorted role of intelligence agencies in the foreign-policy process will be further consolidated. More immediately, Americans will be condemned to live with Russophobic fear more or less indefinitely. I have only one question on this point, and maybe some (more) elderly fellow can answer it: Was the anti-Communist case that haunted the 1950s so impossibly flimsy as this? Hard to believe, given all the damage it did, but maybe we are about to learn something very awful.

Another question, actually. How did it come to be that what we witness daily now is to be cheered? My own answer runs to an old confusion characteristic of Americans. Most of us are entirely taken up with means. This has been so for a long time. We say we have ideals, ends, but in truth these are museum curiosities now. Our only purpose is merely to sustain the present—which by definition is not an ideal. If it takes a CIA operation to get this done—in this case to kneecap Donald Trump—well, one is all for it.

“Bring on the special prosecutor” was the headline on an editorial in the Times a few days after Flynn resigned. All the banners of liberal outrage were aloft by then. At first Flynn’s sin was talking to Russian officials before Trump’s inauguration. When the idiocy of this position finally dawned, it was, as it is now, that Flynn had lied to Trump and Vice President Pence. Unless Flynn broke a law, and he did not by any untainted judgment, this is a matter strictly between Trump and Pence and Flynn, if I am not mistaken. It is the latest peg for the anti-Trump people to hang their hats on, but as grounds for a special prosecutor, it is ridiculous.

[imanihonjin]

I do find it funny that Claire McCaskill was quick to slam Sessions and emphatically stating that as a committee member of the same Armed Services Committee that Sessions claims as the reason for visiting with the Russian Ambassador she had never meet with or even had a call with any Russian Ambassador. She has two tweets of hers over the years that state she was either meeting with or had a call with a Russian ambassador.

[imanihonjin]

Embedded Tweet

[BlueK]

if this is a diplomatic mission where is the ambassador?

[Moliere]

Embedded Tweet

FIFY


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[imanihonjin]

FIFY


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks. Not sure what happened.

[Jeff Lebowski]

No, but this isn't a criminal investigation, it's an inquiry as to fitness for an appointment by exploring conflicts, etc. His candor is expected. Like I said- he could have wrapped it up at the hearings rather than evade or shut down the line of questioning.

Exactly. If there is nothing to hide, why obfuscate? If nothing else, it is very poor judgment.

[creekster]

Exactly. If there is nothing to hide, why obfuscate? If nothing else, it is very poor judgment.

He did not obfuscate in response to Leahy. Why volunteer? They're senators and can ask what they want; he doesn't need to help them. Moreover, assuming he is truthful in responding that he did not discuss the 2016 election with the Russians, he could have answered Farnken in a simpler way that would have similarly been non-obfuscatory and truthful. Instead he weaseled around which then created, IMO, an obligation to at least alert Franken to his discussions because he implied he had none.

[Jeff Lebowski]

He did not obfuscate in response to Leahy. Why volunteer? They're senators and can ask what they want; he doesn't need to help them. Moreover, assuming he is truthful in responding that he did not discuss the 2016 election with the Russians, he could have answered Farnken in a simpler way that would have similarly been non-obfuscatory and truthful. Instead he weaseled around which then created, IMO, an obligation to at least alert Franken to his discussions because he implied he had none.

Why not? If there is a simple, non-sinister explanation to the meetings, why not just say so upfront and bury the issue?

He is not doing himself or Trump any favors by "weaseling around".

[imanihonjin]

"If there was any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what would you do?"

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/02/politi...ing/index.html

I think the lead up to the question is important for context as well. Here is the lead up and question:

CNN just published a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president-elect last week, that included information that “Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump.” These documents also allegedly say “there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.” Again, I’m telling you this as it’s coming out, so, you know.

But if it’s true, it’s obviously extremely serious, and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?

EDIT: Here is Sessions answer as well:

Senator Franken, I’m not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it.

[creekster]

Why not? If there is a simple, non-sinister explanation to the meetings, why not just say so upfront and bury the issue?

He is not doing himself or Trump any favors by "weaseling around".

He was never asked by Leahy about ANY meetings. He was only asked about meetings where he discussed the 2016 election. I agree that his 'weaseling', as I put it, was not useful. I see nothing wrong whatsoever (assuming the truth of the underlying assertion of no discussion re 2016 election) with his response to Leahy. In fact, one could easily argue that at the time, in the moment, Leahy was EXCLUDING interest in any other type of contact by so clearly limiting his question. Franken, too, seemed not to be interested in non-campaign related contacts. Instead of directly answering the question Franken posed, however, Sessions garbled and babbled and created a new scope of discussion in which he implied there had been NO contact on his part when in fact here had been. I don't think the misleading act was in a response to a question, but in creating misdirection in his poorly phrased answer.

I see now from my phone news alerts that Sessions is recusing himself, as he had to do, and so this will be investigated and put to rest one way or the other. Not exactly a nothing burger but I bet it doesnt end up being much more than that. Now we will know, however.

[Walter Sobchak]

I see now from my phone news alerts that Sessions is recusing himself, as he had to do, and so this will be investigated and put to rest one way or the other. Not exactly a nothing burger but I bet it doesnt end up being much more than that. Now we will know, however.

It doesn't matter if it results in nothing or not; at least for the Democratic leaders spearheading this witch hunt. This entire matter does nothing more than allow the Dems to avoid confronting the ugly truth about how and why they failed to win the Presidency against the worst-qualified presidential candidate in my lifetime (your lifetime too I'd bet). Do you think the DNC is engaged in any self-critique about the absolutely disgusting behaviors that those leaked e-mails revealed? Hardly. Too busy looking under every bed for a Rooskie.