Trump, the 'Russian' President?

[Runnin]

Sessions was meeting with the Russian ambassador too, and apparently didn't not mention this. Will this new piece of information revive the scandal?


Sessions was asked directly by Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) “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?”

Sessions responded, “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.”

While Trump may have lowered the bar for passable presidential performance, it seems to have been raise out of reach for what constitutes evidence of wrong doing.

 

[Runnin]

After failing to remove Clinton from office for lying under oath, Sessions told the Associated Press in February 1999 that he feared Clinton’s acquittal would “send the wrong message to a future generation of American leaders.”

When President Nixon resigned in the face of impeachment in 1974, he said, the message was clear that officials “couldn't play games with the law and the truth.”

“I hope we haven't sent a message that’s not as clear,” he said, “that clever people can sometimes get ahead by spinning and not telling the truth. That worries me.”

 

[Runnin]

I guess this was another "leak".

 

[goldfly]

seriously, why do they keep lying about talking to the Russians

with each new lie coming to light etc etc it gives more credence to all the rumors and speculation

it's beyond weird

 

[57Brave]

Because

"that is who they are "

 

[57Brave]

Max Weiss‏Verified account @maxthegirl

Ted Cruz also suggested Sessions may have misspoke because he had been subjected to hours of grilling.

 

[Julio3000]

Three Republican Senators have called for AG recusal from Russia investigations. At least 3 R House members have done the same thus far.

Based on the DOJ guidelines, recusal should be a no-brainer. This should not be an issue for controversy or partisanship.

 

[Hawk]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...-and-other-trump-officials-talking-to-russia/

 

[Hawk]

Three Republican Senators have called for AG recusal from Russia investigations. At least 3 R House members have done the same thus far.

Based on the DOJ guidelines, recusal should be a no-brainer. This should not be an issue for controversy or partisanship.

"to the extent they exist"

 

[Julio3000]

Man, it's a good thing those conversations with senior career officials advising him on recusal concluded TODAY, huh?

 

[Julio3000]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...-and-other-trump-officials-talking-to-russia/

I have a small prediction about how this might go in the near term. The WH has suffered from Flynn/Sessions being obfuscatory/untruthful about Russia contacts. Look for them to be more transparent about more pedestrian contacts (I think this has already started, see story about Kushner/Flynn meeting w/Kislyak in December). They will try to get out in front of the story that way, and go on background complaining about nasty partisans criminalizing politics and endangering national security by scaremongering about the Russians.

 

[Julio3000]

So Trump was lying about having nothing to do with the RNC platform change re:Ukraine. I mean, no surprise, but it's nice to have confirmation.

 

[Runnin]

So Trump was lying about having nothing to do with the RNC platform change re:Ukraine. I mean, no surprise, but it's nice to have confirmation.

To me, that's the big smoking gun, the sudden out of nowhere change to the Republican National Committee's platform with specific respect to Ukraine/Russia. You just can't write that off as business as usual. It was an odd and rather shocking change of policy that came directly from Russia via Trump.

 

[Runnin]

Sergey Kislyak, looking very prime for a sudden, fatal disease or mishap.

]

 

[sturg33]

As a friendly reminder to everyone that it is NOT illegal to talk with Russians and should not be looked at as an act of treason.

I recognize that the issue is perjury, but I'm reading a lot from idiots on the left that this was an act of treason.

 

[57Brave]

"the left"

that is what the investigation is about to learn if it was or wasn't treason.
Certain you would agree it is worth looking into

name names please when making allegations

 

[Runnin]

Am I reading between the lines correctly to think that pretty much all these leaks came from the work Obama did prior to leaving office in preserving the evidence of these dubious interactions between Russian and team Trump?

Is this what T means when he says that Obama is attacking him?

Trump's advisers push him to purge Obama appointees

 

[Hawk]

Man, it's a good thing those conversations with senior career officials advising him on recusal concluded TODAY, huh?

Almost as coincidental as the leak which prompted the recusal occurring two days after Trump's (successful) joint address.

 

[Julio3000]

Almost as coincidental as the leak which prompted the recusal occurring two days after Trump's (successful) joint address.

Yes, I doubt that's a coincidence. Of course, I'm not claiming that it is. Nor am I the Attorney General of the United States.

 

[Hawk]

I have a small prediction about how this might go in the near term. The WH has suffered from Flynn/Sessions being obfuscatory/untruthful about Russia contacts. Look for them to be more transparent about more pedestrian contacts (I think this has already started, see story about Kushner/Flynn meeting w/Kislyak in December). They will try to get out in front of the story that way, and go on background complaining about nasty partisans criminalizing politics and endangering national security by scaremongering about the Russians.

Short of a smoking gun of some sort, I just don't see this narrative advancing deep enough to where it's going to have a real impact on the Presidency. It was partially litigated (by public opinion) in November, and, sure, while it's true that more information has come to the surface now, months later, I still can't imagine it taking hold in any significant way. On Meet the Press this past Sunday they were comparing the 'Russian' problem with the nuisance that Whitewater created for the Clinton administration. Like a net on a shrimp trawler, the Whitewater story just kept collecting a little bit here and a little bit there until it became big enough to represent a kind of omnipresent negative impact on the administration both in terms of upcoming midterms and in terms of moving legislation through Congress. It had to be addressed. A clip was played where Senator Moynihan basically begged for an investigation -- "Presidents can't be seen to have any hesitation about any matter that concerns their propriety," Mr. Moynihan said. "And this is an honorable man. We have a fine President. He has nothing to hide."

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/10/us/moynihan-urges-prosecutor-to-study-clinton-land-deal.html

Obviously, the Whitewater controversy and the Russian connection bear little similarity, at least materially, but you can't help but wonder if they end up in the same place (ultimate findings coming 7 years after the investigation began).