Posted on 03/01/2017 8:17:35 PM PST by EinNYC
Edited on 03/01/2017 8:53:27 PM PST by Jim Robinson. [history]
Then-Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) spoke twice last year with Russia
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
>You’re half right. At first Flynn claimed he did remember what was discussed, and the sanctions were never mentioned. After that was shown to be untrue, THEN Flynn said he couldn’t recall:
That’s actually entirely consistent with my statement. If you don’t remember talking about it then you’re going say it never came up. Once someone tells you on tape that you talked about it then you own memory gets fuzzy. It’s just the way your brain works.
I used to think about Anna Kournikova all the time. Is that ok?
“I talked to General Flynn about that conversation and actually was initiated on Christmas Day he had sent a text to the Russian ambassador to express not only Christmas wishes but sympathy for the loss of life in the airplane crash that took place. It was strictly coincidental that they had a conversation. They did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia,” Pence told host John Dickerson.
Flynn spoke to the ambassador the very day Obama imposed sanctions. This happened toward the end of Dec. The newly imposed sanctions were discussed. The interview with Pence wasn’t that long afterward. Flynn gave him to understand that the timing was purely coincidental, and related what had actually been discussed.
Do you honestly believe that in such a short period of time Flynn ‘just forgot,’ something as important as Obama’s newly imposed sanctions? How is that remotely plausible?
Also meanwhile in the news this very day on fox news, a story about corruption through justice department under Obama.
https://ihavethetruth.com/2017/03/01/busted-obama-doj-laundered-billions-to-communist-front-groups/
Unnamed sources
Further may I point out Sessions was a sitting senator and would have had reasons to see or meet a Russian member that might have had nothing to do with the campaign
No. It means the left us desperate
The guy who said you sound like a loser is right, so shut up and stop sounding like a loser.
Unless you really are a loser, if that’s the case, then stop being a loser.
It’s not terrible at all. It’s fraudulent and misleading reporting and it’s a witchhunt (or should we be very honest and call it a whitehunt). The question posed is, did Sessions, himself, discuss the Trump *campaign* with any Russian people? The answer was no. Whether Sessions, in his capacity as senator, met with anyone from Russia to discuss other things is irrevelant.
Franken, speaking of alleged documents that apparently nobody has ever seen - Franken: “...These documents also allegedly stated ‘There was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump’s surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government’...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?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BpgHcanjCQ
My point is that he said nothing wrong. He just asked Russia to hold off on retaliating against the U.S., and the most they could say is that he gave the “impression” that the sanctions would be overturned (they weren’t), but he said the sanctions could be discussed in the future. There was nothing that he said wrong there, and I can see how he felt he didn’t discuss the sanctions as he never promised anything regarding the sanctions.
We know that Trump was aware of this for a few weeks prior to Pence finding out. Trump didn’t get rid of Flynn at the time nor tell Pence because I don’t think Trump thought it was a big deal. Then it hit the media, and the optics were bad because they tried to use the Logan Act (ludicrous) and call him a liar because the media made it look like he told this big lie to Mike Pence. Trump let him go, but he shouldn’t have because now they are using the exact same playbook to try to get Sessions.
I don’t care!!!
Of course MSNBC is in full out gloat mode with the bastion of truth, Brian Williams reporting. Their ticker was saying Pelosi is saying Sessions should resign.
I’m in a hotel so just stumbled through that station. Just remind why I rarely tune in to MSNBC.
The problem is that Pence, who was present at the interview—asking the questions and evaluating the answers—is 100% convinced he was lied to. You can blow it off, and say honesty and integrity are no big deals. (Democrats certainly think that way, and lie without scruple.) Pence believes otherwise. Lie to his face and he doesn’t like it.
Nor should he.
They know it’s fraudulent and misleading. Many will just read the headline and maybe read a third of the article. They won’t comprehend that it’s a nothing burger and just see Sessions=Russia. And that is the point.
“Tell your pleasant little slur to Gordon Chang, who is a nightly guest on the John Batchelor show. I was listening to that show tonight when they broke this story. Gordon Chang immediately said on the air that there was only one thing for Sessions to do, and that was to resign. “
So, since I’d never heard of Chang, I did a little research. He’s a lawyer with some alleged expertise regarding China - although he’s predicted its government would collapse over five years ago, unsuccessfully.
More importantly I saw nothing to indicate he’s a) not a Dem partisan or b) anything resembling an authority on whether Sessions should resign.
Take a pill and revisit things in the morning...
There is no need to be concerned for Sessions. Trump will stand by him. Flynn resigned because he lied bold faced in his interview with Pence. Sessions would never do anything like that; he is a man of integrity.
>Flynn spoke to the ambassador the very day Obama imposed sanctions. This happened toward the end of Dec. The newly imposed sanctions were discussed. The interview with Pence wasn’t that long afterward. Flynn gave him to understand that the timing was purely coincidental, and related what had actually been discussed.
>Do you honestly believe that in such a short period of time Flynn ‘just forgot,’ something as important as Obama’s newly imposed sanctions? How is that remotely plausible?
Yes. Because Flynn blew him off when he tried to bring them it up according to the FBI. Do you remember every time you change the subject from something you don’t want to talk about? I sure don’t.
I refer you to post 92. Pence, who was the one actually present and interacting with Flynn, fully believes he was lied to. His POV is far superior to yours and mine, because we’re only getting secondhand, incomplete accounts of what was said, and how it was said, in that interview.
‘Pence was angry with Flynn for having misled him, and Flynn’s explanation of a bad memory was not convincing to administration officials. Their concerns were not over Flynn’s close ties with the Putin regime—it was the belief that Flynn had lied to Pence and other officials about the calls and was, at least initially, unrepentant about it.’
I would highly recommend this article which articulates my point as to the bogus lie explanation:
The Political Assassination of Michael Flynn
It's not even clear that Flynn lied. He says in his resignation letter that he did not deliberately leave out elements of his conversations with Ambassador Sergey Kislyak when he recounted them to Vice President Mike Pence. The New York Times and Washington Post reported that the transcript of the phone call reviewed over the weekend by the White House could be read different ways. One White House official with knowledge of the conversations told me that the Russian ambassador raised the sanctions to Flynn and that Flynn responded that the Trump team would be taking office in a few weeks and would review Russia policy and sanctions. That's neither illegal nor improper.
What's more, the Washington Post reported Monday night that last month Sally Yates, then the acting attorney general, had informed the White House that Flynn discussed sanctions with Kislyak and that he could be susceptible to blackmail because he misled Pence about it. If it was the lie to Pence that sunk Flynn, why was he not fired at the end of January?
A better explanation here is that Flynn was just thrown under the bus. His tenure as national security adviser, the briefest in U.S. history, was rocky from the start. When Flynn was attacked in the media for his ties to Russia, he was not allowed by the White House to defend himself. Over the weekend, he was instructed not to speak to the press when he was in the fight for his political life. His staff was not even allowed to review the transcripts of his call to the Russian ambassador.
(Snip)
"In the end, it was Trump's decision to cut Flynn loose. In doing this he caved in to his political and bureaucratic opposition. Nunes told me Monday night that this will not end well. "First it's Flynn, next it will be Kellyanne Conway, then it will be Steve Bannon, then it will be Reince Priebus," he said. Put another way, Flynn is only the appetizer. Trump is the entree."
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-02-14/the-political-assassination-of-michael-flynn
Nunes is a good guy, and he is one who sees this Russia BS for what it is.
The Democrats certainly think honesty and integrity are big deals...when Republicans are in office, and now they are using the exact same attack to take out Sessions that they did with Flynn. Remember, Flynn was the first appetizer.
Honestly, would it really be unfair for me to say that the administration knowing the fake firestorm regarding Russia should have covered their a** a bit better?
In their own vetting process they would have come across information like this which is completely harmless of course. Why not have just got it out their and avoid this? Fighting the media is all well and good, but surely it is better to do it on your own terms.
In four years Trump is going to need some of the mushy middle grounders to win reelection. Much as we aren’t swayed by this, they are and that in of itself is a problem.
>I refer you to post 92. Pence, who was the one actually present and interacting with Flynn, fully believes he was lied to. His POV is far superior to yours and mine, because we’re only getting secondhand, incomplete accounts of what was said, and how it was said, in that interview.
>‘Pence was angry with Flynn for having misled him, and Flynn’s explanation of a bad memory was not convincing to administration officials. Their concerns were not over Flynn’s close ties with the Putin regime—it was the belief that Flynn had lied to Pence and other officials about the calls and was, at least initially, unrepentant about it.’
Wow that article just dropped my opinion of Pence like a rock. He either didn’t understand the political ramifications of doing the media’s bidding in dumping Flynn, didn’t care because he was upset, or intentionally did it to increase his own power. All displays of short term thinking on his part. Dumping Flynn was the first step towards impeaching Trump and Pence should be smart enough to know it. He should have put his ego aside for the good of the country and given Flynn the benefit the doubt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.