Boy, it really is true what they say about women never forgetting anything they are mad at you about. That was about 6 months ago.
What I said was no one would be happier than me to find out that Sessions was playing a role the entire time. It seemed to me that there were better ways to attack the deep state than let it run rampant for 2 years, destroy people like Manafort and have Mueller tie up the administration. I resolved to stay out of that argument and just wait and see. As time went on, as more and more things fell into place, I moved into the Trust Sessions camp. There was still no evidence that Sessions should be trusted, but there was so much proof that Q was indeed working with the President, and if you trust the President, then you have to trust what Q was saying. Simple as that. Session being recused was part of a plan.
It looks like the unrecusal of Sessions, which I argued he should do back then, is in fact about to happen. On the brink of that, and another big Q proof, you choose to dredge up an old, long-dead argument? Vindictive much?
Boy, it really is true what they say about women never forgetting anything they are mad at you about.
<<<
Yes, it is true.
If I confused you with another who was tangling with bagster last week regarding Sessions, I sincerely apologize. I assure you I’m not thinking of what someone said 6 months ago. So no, it wasn’t driven by being vindictive. I do apologize if I’ve confused you with another.