The Trump Presidency
- Thread starter The Tariff King
- Start date
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
I'm not seconding you on the civil asset forfeiture but I completely agree with you on the rest. There needs to be a system of accountability for these people in government. Too many of them get away with either obvious charges not being made, pleading the 5th, immunity deals, ridiculous loopholes, or just outright lying. Typical citizens would never get away with this and I think more of us should be tired of the double standard, regardless of which side happens to benefit from it at any one specific point in time.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
That may be an accurate portrayal of what happened.
Seems odd that Sessions would deny knowledge of such interactions when asked about it by the Judiciary Committee, though.
It's worth noting that when he was asked about contacts with Russian officials regarding emails, his answer was that he "didn't recall" any.
It could very well be that there's nothing to that, either, but that answer does not inspire confidence.
It's hard to escape the conclusion that Sessions has not been forthright in his testimony.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Why are you against seizure? Trump and Sessions are big supporters of the programs so they should be understanding when it happens to them? Right? A vast majority of the people whose property is seized are never charged with a crime. I Don't see how it's okay to use CAF for suspicion of drugs but shouldn't be used when the suspicion is conspiracy against America. Really need our priorities straightened out.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Okay, so when asked why not say "Well one campaign staffer, Papadopolous, said he had contact with Russians and wanted to set up a meeting with Putin. We said no and moved on.
I have a hard time believing Sessions can not remember being vehemently opposed to a suggested meeting with Putin or that Trump doesn't remember that meeting. The only way they would forget that specific meeting is if they had a lot of discussions about Putin so they couldnt recall one specific meeting.
Its not a hard question to answer " did anyone in the Trump campaign have contacts with Russian agents?". The answer is Yes.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
I'm not saying that contacts with Russian officials didn't happen. I'm saying that the quoted article and Sessions' statement are not contrary to one another. The article doesn't have Papodopoulos saying "I spoke with Dmitri, he can setup a meeting." It just has him saying the equivalent of "Want me to make a call?", and Sessions saying "Goodness gracious, no!" So Sessions can legitimately say he doesn't know of contact being made. I find it unlikely, but I don't think the statements in this article prove it.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
Wait, let me clarify that we are using the same definition of "contact." I am not using it in the sense of "I have a contact at Happy Burger who gets me a good deal on chicken nuggets." All of these people have multiple "contacts" of that type, and Pap certainly admits it in the bolded parts of the article:
At a March 31, 2016, meeting between Mr. Trump and his foreign policy team, Mr. Papadopoulos introduced himself and said “that he had connections that could help arrange a meeting between then-candidate Trump and President Putin,” according to court records.
“He went into the pitch right away,” said J. D. Gordon, a campaign adviser who attended the meeting. “He said he had a friend in London, the Russian ambassador, who could help set up a meeting with Putin.”
Mr. Trump listened with interest. Mr. Sessions vehemently opposed the idea, Mr. Gordon recalled. “And he said that no one should talk about it,” because Mr. Sessions thought it was a bad idea that he did not want associated with the campaign, he said.
Several of Mr. Trump’s campaign advisers attended the March 2016 meeting, and at least two of those advisers are now in the White House: Hope Hicks, the communications director, and Stephen Miller, a senior policy adviser.
But if we are saying he had "contact" to mean that he had communicated with them in some way, that is never stated in the article.
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Republican Sen. Bob Corker continued his criticism of President Donald Trump on Friday, saying Trump is pressuring the Justice Department to "pursue cases against his adversaries and calling for punishment before trials take place."
"Like me, most Americans hope that our justice system is independent and free of political interference," Corker said in a statement Friday afternoon. "President Trump's pressuring of the Justice Department and FBI to pursue cases against his adversaries and calling for punishment before trials take place are totally inappropriate and not only undermine our justice system but erode the American people's confidence in our institutions."
It is the third time in recent weeks Corker has been highly critical of the President. The Tennessee Republican announced in September that he's not running for re-election.
Trump has repeatedly in the past 24 hours criticized the Justice Department, including in a radio interview where the President described himself as "unhappy" with the department. On Friday morning, Trump told reporters that Justice should be investigating Democrats.
"Like me, most Americans hope that our justice system is independent and free of political interference," Corker said in a statement Friday afternoon. "President Trump's pressuring of the Justice Department and FBI to pursue cases against his adversaries and calling for punishment before trials take place are totally inappropriate and not only undermine our justice system but erode the American people's confidence in our institutions."
It is the third time in recent weeks Corker has been highly critical of the President. The Tennessee Republican announced in September that he's not running for re-election.
Trump has repeatedly in the past 24 hours criticized the Justice Department, including in a radio interview where the President described himself as "unhappy" with the department. On Friday morning, Trump told reporters that Justice should be investigating Democrats.
Because that answer (detailing the purported discussion with PapaD) would've been overkill. It would have resulted in a follow-up line of questioning demanding names, dates, and other exactnesses. His answer was designed to be evasive, and I don't read much into it beyond that. It's just the nature of the dance. You aren't trying to aide in a case being made against you, that's the other guy's job.
You want to call that misleading, fine. But perjury? Eh. Good luck with that.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
Agreed. A large number of people conceding employment shouldn't be calculated as a positive in any formula.
At the same time, the same formula was used to widely applaud the previous administration on jobs, so it would be hypocritical of that group to find qualms with it now.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
I don't think CAF in it's current form should be applied to anyone.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
There are several classes of dropouts from the labor market.
1) Those who have qualified for disability. The way the system is set up there is very little incentive to come back into the labor force once that happens.
2) Another group that has not qualified for disability but have issues that make them effectively disabled. The opioid epidemic is one manifestation of this. So is the rise in death rates among particular demographic groups. These are very serious problems. There is causality in both directions with respect to the labor force. The Great Recession accelerated these social problems. And they in turn are now preventing people from participating in the economy and society in the way they were prior to the Great Recession.
3) Many people found things to do to generate unreported income during the Great Recession. It might not make economic sense for them to return to the formal economy.
My point is with 1-3 above, the 4% unemployment rate might really be the 4% unemployment rate. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
I agree that it isn't perjury, but dissembling under oath isn't a great look for an AG. I imagine he'll get a chance to answer, behind closed doors and with specificity, in due course.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
For various reasons, I think Mueller will go easy on Sessions. I do think the depositions he takes from Sessions and Rod Rosenstein will be the most consequential of the whole investigation. Consequential for Trump.