Heh. C'mon man.
Post 890 : "Nunes is saying he wants to hold Sessions in contempt. This should be an interesting week." (by generally)
In response, 907 : "Jeff Sessions seems to have earned it." (by ptsal)
In response, 945 : "Yes, he has. Look at all the damage that the stupid special counsel has caused. All because Sessions was snookered into recusing himself instead of doing his job, which was to be a firewall between the Deep State and Trump ..." (you, saying Sessions should have acted more like Obama's wing-man, Holder)
I'll accept you aren't here to bash Sessions. But the discussion before ptsal and you weighed in was pretty free of Sessions-opinion material.
I'll admit to fanning the flames at 963, a post that you replied to and that got us closer to this point. But I don't think I would have had the thought that Sessions critics are asking for a bit of Holder-like conduct, except for reading ptsal and you.
At least we aren't on a food or metallurgy tangent.
Don’t forget the semicolon and a typo in a Rosie tweet. LoL
So I didn’t bring Sessions up, someone else did, and I gave my view of Sessions and how his tenure had damaged this presidency. Isn’t that right?
In other words, as I have said, I am not here specifically to bash Sessions, but if the subject comes up, I will provide my view. I think that is within the purview of discussions of Qanon.