Fake News: Media, Democrats Distort Remarks to Target Jeff Sessions

Breitbart ^ | March 1, 2017 | By Joel B. Pollak

[right way right]

Yes, what you said.

[nathanbedford]

My comments were directed at the history of special prosecutors and the Republican Party and the victories all seem to be in the Democrat column. I did not assert that the Republicans or the administration is suffering grave damage I said words to the effect that the potential to suffer grave damage is there. I did not make such an assertion because I have no data to that effect. I invite you to watch the Republicans go on television and call for recusal even for special prosecutor.

I assume you have something more than your valued opinion to offer in support of your contention that:

They are a laughingstock, and the American people see right through their transparent faux outrage.

Perhaps a consensus of polls that show Trump where most presidents are at this point in his administration?

He made a great speech, got good poll numbers, but where is his approval rating? Where is the data concerning the fact that the Democrats and the media are "laughingstock?" Inquiring minds like to see the data.

[mrsmith]

Oh!
NO, no. Not disputing the accuracy of the quoted part of the transcript, but the context.

It is the immediately *previous* remarks and question of Franken that set the context for the quoted question and reply. And make Sessions’ reply reasonable and responsible.
As, also, does Franken’s immediate follow-up.

The subject was Russian interference in the election. That is what Sessions addressed, and tried to address fully.

[1Old Pro]

Seriously, this doesn’t even rise to being a story, yet CNN is issuing breaking reports every 5 minutes? What the heck is up with this fake news.

[nathanbedford]

Since you do not dispute the accuracy of the transcript, I say again as I said in my reply #26, is there anything in Franken's question that limits the question to campaign conversations? I make the case that that interpretation is plausible. I deny that it is the only or exclusive reasonable interpretation of the scope of Franken's question. Nevertheless, whatever the scope of Franken's question, it is plausible that nominee Sessions question was so limited. That is a plausible inference but not the only inference.

Unfortunately, there is Session's overbroad answer:

"… I did not have communications with the Russians…"

That is a flat misstatement under oath. The question is can it be spun because of the context, as you suggest.

Again, it is plausible that Sessions after hours of testimony simply misunderstood the question as relating only to campaign conversations or conversations concerning alleged Trump vulnerabilities. But it is not the only explanation, indeed, the more plausible explanation is that he intended the plain meaning of his words. But that is not the test, nor should it be the test. Nevertheless, the exchange is unfortunate.

Equally unfortunate is the fact that Sessions never cleaned up the misstatement. One can say that he had no reason to think of it or, on the other hand, one can say that in view of the fiasco concerning General Flynn, Sessions should have been put on his guard. Even without that fair warning raised by General Flynn, a prudent nominee would have reviewed his testimony as a matter of course and cleaned up any ambiguities. Sessions did not.

That is the analysis as I see it. There is nothing in the video the changes that opinion. Your mere referral to a video over and over again without exposing the explicit words or the actual context in which you refer is certainly not helpful to the reader.

[mrsmith]

I didn’t form a judgment of his remarks until I had seen the context.
Same as I would for anyone.

Taken out of context, one can read anything into his remarks. That’s not very helpful though.

Not a transcriber. Don’t like vids myself but at least this one gets right to the point.

[Mollypitcher1]

How dare you suggest I would plagiarize anything you wrote! I have no need for your prompting nor your lessons in history as I am well acquainted with the subject. You can keep Halsey. I’ll take Patton any day of the week and twice on Sunday!

[nathanbedford]

Would you prefer "schizophrenic?"

You start off this discussion by telling me in effect to shut up (tank it) and then spend the balance of your time echoing what I had already written.

[Mollypitcher1]

What’s your problem? Can’t stand a little correction? You seem to be free and easy with your accusations or should I call them pseudo-diagnostics? You’ve been informed that you do not impress me. Leave it at that and keep your name calling to yourself!

[nathanbedford]

Mollypitcher1's comments in reply #69:

"What’s your problem? Can’t stand a little correction? You seem to be free and easy with your accusations or should I call them pseudo-diagnostics? You’ve been informed that you do not impress me. Leave it at that and keep your name calling to yourself!"

Mollypitcher1's trail of hypocrisy leading to the final explosion in reply #69:

#49

"… deep-six your overly erudite comments which serve no purpose …"

"IOW TANK IT!"

#51

"…self important people dedicated to trying to think for others."

#67

"I have no need for your prompting nor your lessons in history"

#69

"Can’t stand a little correction?"

"You’ve been informed that you do not impress me."

"… keep your name calling to yourself!"

Take a look in the mirror. Consider what substantive facts you have brought to this discussion and after you ponder that question be advised that any reader who does the same will find that the answer is zero.

You started out seeking to silence me, attacking my motives but never dealing with facts or substance. You resort to the ad hominem as part of your campaign to shut down opinion you do not like to hear. Are you sure you are not a tenured professor somewhere?