So if Sessions perjured (as you have repeatedly claimed) why hasn't he been called to account for his lie?
The Liberal Media Bubble
- Thread starter sturg33
- Start date
So if Sessions perjured (as you have repeatedly claimed) why hasn't he been called to account for his lie?
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
My standard of malfeasance is not the test here. I haven't made any representations of his motives or even the content of his misrepresentations. I have stated what is known at this point, which is that he lied, and that his lie was deemed by the administration to be a firing offense. If you choose to suggest that it was in fact an innocent omission, I can neither prove nor disprove that. I can tell you that I personally feel that such a suggestion is silly, but I can't disprove it.
You said they don't lie about Russian contacts. He lied. He got fired for lying. Your spinning it, without evidence, into the most innocuous of lights doesn't change that.
End of story.
Good gracious.
I'm spinning it? That's rich.
I simply suggested not jumping off the cliff headfirst into one particular interpretation of events. You've long since taken that dive if you are comfortable freely throwing around 'fired' 'lied' etc.
I'll happily concede that you are correct in your beliefs when I see Sessions and/or Flynn held legally accountable for their supposed transgressions. Until then, you'll excuse me if I'm exhausted of the dead horse (err ... bear) beating.
Now, if we could kindly get back to the topic at hand (the effects of which I think have been amply demonstrated today) ... which was whether or not a Russian spokesperson insinuating that the Clinton campaign also had advisors meet with emissaries of the Russian government is newsworthy material.
Now, if we could kindly get back to the topic at hand (the effects of which I think have been amply demonstrated today) ... which was whether or not a Russian spokesperson insinuating that the Clinton campaign also had advisors meet with emissaries of the Russian government is newsworthy material.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Use whatever euphemism you prefer.
"Lied" or " inaccurately briefed with incomplete information."
"Fired" or "asked to resign."
Pick a euphemism. The fact is, it happened, and I'm willing to de-couple that from any nefarious interpretations about the "why."
Bottom line, he no longer has a job because he [pick your favored euphemism]. I don't care what verbiage you use. The facts are the facts. He is no longer the NSA because he [choose your euphemism] to his colleagues.
Your position is that he was a sacrificial lamb who had to resign because he innocently forgot the frequency and content of his conversations with a foreign diplomat, which was germane to a major issue in the Presidential campaign.
Mine is that (using your presumably preferred euphemisms) he was asked to resign because he innacurately briefed the VP and other WH officials with incomplete information.
Who is spinning?
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Sure, if you'll agree to my stipulation that the former DNI lying to Sen Wyden (D-OR) does not provide blanket immunity to any other person lying at any time.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Gosh, I'll be happy to discuss that when those Clinton campaign advisers are held legally accountable for their supposed transgressions.
57Brave
Well-known member
Should the (R) Senate not charge with perjury rest assured the Justice Department will advance the baton
Really ?
So basically Democrats are free to 'lie' during Democratic administrations and Republicans are free to lie during Republican administrations?
Thanks for clearing that up.
Come on.
The semantics here are extremely important. You know that as well as I do - so I'm not sure what good it goes to play dumb just so you can validate your approach.
Flynn maintains that his actions were routine and he made a mistake when it came to accurately conveying the exact content of the conversations he had with Kislyak. We know that, despite what Flynn originally publicly (and, apparently, privately) stated, he did discuss sanctions with the Russian ambassador. What we do not know is the context of the conversation as it pertains to the sanctions. We don't know if Kislyak called Flynn bitching and moaning about Obama's tact toward Russia and if Flynn said something to the effect of, 'If my guy gets in, we're going to work this out' or 'If you take care of that little thing we discussed it's going to be a non-issue in the future'. We just know that the sanctions were 'discussed' ... and, ostensibly, the administration was worried about further leaks (especially if they could possibly undercut Trump, as they did Pence) so it was agreed upon that Flynn resign. Nail in coffin.
I view the administration's actions as damage control. You view them as bowing to public pressure.
So your evidence of why Sessions/Flynn won't be charged is ... Richard Nixon?
If nuance isn't my forte, logic must not be yours.
I will, if you agree not to automatically dismiss a source just because he/she works with the Russian government.
Factual misstatements earn you a slap on the wrist. A lie earns you a criminal conviction.
So, yeah, I'm going to say that distinction is crucial to make.
Touché.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
A slap on the wrist...or the loss of a job in the White House, I guess.
I'd be interested to hear your simple, single-sentence summation of why Mike Flynn is no longer the NSA.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Sure, so stipulated. You're still basing your case on a non-specific statement from an individual notable for high-profile dissembling, regardless of his employer.
So losing a job at the White House carries the same weight as a perjury charge?
That's a matter of perspective.