Posted on 11/21/2017 9:07:05 PM PST by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
‘There is a special place in hell for people who prey on children,’
Yes, but right next to that special place in hell is a spot for false accusers.
Ah, a sessions supporter...
Really did not have an answer to the fairly simple question as to why Louis Lerner was let off...Oh, for bigger fish, of course, yet he then let of Koskinen. I did not even get into the question of his recusal—and not giving the President a heads up.
Pretty sure I heard him say does not seem like enough evidence...and saw headlines to indicate that. If I am incorrect, then I stand corrected...but I have to go out now and frankly don’t see much of a meeting of the minds on this stuff...
so sessions living in swamp town is supposedly not a swamp dweller, but he gives swamp dweller answers? OK, well he seemed to recall more a few months ago, and I don’t care if everyone does it; they swear to tell the truth, and they don’t all have failing memories.
Sorry, I have seen very little from sessions that would indicate to me he is on Trump’s team and is anything but a swamp creature.
WAAAAAY off topic? (5 “A’s,” nice touch...) Who was discussing it on the thread before I saw it?
Right on!
He’s heavily medicated. I would be too if I stabbed President Trump in the back and tried to rationalize why there’s no SC for Hillary & O’muslim yet there’s one for Trump.
I'm not the person I was in high school, never kept up contacts with any but a vital few, moved away and never went back.
-PJ
Seriously? Trump has everything to fear, as “they” are not above lying and fabricating any fiction (fake dossier) that will accomplish their desired result.
Yeah, so what's new? That *is* what the enemy does. They were always gonna "resist". Did you actually expect them not to jump on everything? To create a fuss? Have the enemedia publish every stupid thing as fact?
Had Sessions not recused you would now be in the 10th straight month of 24/7 news coverage demanding a special prosecutor or impeachment for something else ... wait for it ... maybe corruption or obstruction for NOT appointing a SC and investigating themselves.
I don't understand your point. It tells me you were gonna panic no matter what happened, if not Russia, the next thing they pull from their hat, and I don't see how it is useful, or sensible. It is just not logical to fret and worry about the enemy resisting and attacking. Dogs bark, Fish swim, (D)ummycrats lie and cheat.
And most of all, all the handwringers refuse to learn anything from Donald Trump himself. He is a master at claiming the upside, something he pioneered long before the Obama 'never let a crisis go to waste'. In this instance, the Russia story will become the best thing that ever happened to him and us. Like discovery in court, they ( the enemy ) has kicked open the door to their own destruction with corruption and collaboration with Russia, Ukraine, Saudi and others. He couldn't possibly have asked for a greater gift.
Do I really need to remind Freepers of making lemonade from lemons? Just the n00bs I guess. Stop watching the enemedia and gaslighting yourselves.
Ah, a sessions supporter...
No, I support America's patriots, period. There are so few down there in the District Of Criminals I cannot stand by. And since the kooks attacking patriots like Sessions and Bannon and Trump hail from the communist left like Soros/Brock and countless others, and also the alleged other side like Kristol/McCain/etc, they all want these patriots gone and reverted to business as usual, well that mean this is a righteous fight indeed.
Really did not have an answer to the fairly simple question as to why Louis Lerner was let off.
We don't have a good answer because we don't know if the thing was ever ran before a grand jury and failed to return indictments. You're looking for the final act ( conviction or something I guess ). But if a grand jury refused where do you go next? Didn't she destroy evidence? Wasn't there already a settlement among TEA party groups? Things are still under way here, including possible unsealing evidence so it may not be over. But let me turn it around on you. Spell out exactly what you believe should have occurred in the past 10 months?
Pretty sure I heard him say does not seem like enough evidence...and saw headlines to indicate that.
You saw headlines? WTF? I heard him say there are specific steps to appoint a SC ( and yes, this is law, it is statutory code written by Congress ). You must be referring to those two showboat Congressman ( our (R)epubs can grandstand with the best of 'em, and realize the irony of having to tell Congresscritters what the law *they* passed means ). One of them said something like: "What the heck would take to get a special counsel appointed?" ( Grandstanding ).
According to a quick search I did to refresh my memory he stated: "It would take a factual basis that meets the standards of the appointment of a special counsel" ( to me BTW, that is a perfect answer. ) He then said: "Looks like’ is not enough basis to appoint a special counsel." That right there is a perfect example of how they create false headlines. If you read it incorrectly ( the way Mark Levin read the NBC clause in Article II Section 1, you miss the point. Sessions was NOT saying there is not enough evidence in this case. He is not even talking about this case at all. He is answering their questions in a showboating oversight hearing and not offering anything to tip them off either way, on either side of the aisle. That *is* his job. He does not work for (R)epubs or (D)ummies and to even have an AG like Sessions remain as AG he must thread a needle.
This so-called 'oversight' hearing is Congress making sure that DoJ is doing its job, by the book they wrote. Sessions job was to get out of there without causing any damage to pending investigations and not spoil the end results. This is more important for him to do than even the President ( who himself must be careful not to spoil potential juries, see Nixon vs Manson ) because remember the 2nd debate? As great as those 'You would be in jail' lines were, and we were all live commenting here, those are now liabilities and Sessions needs to distance himself from that greatly.
This, BTW, is why I never believed those anti-Sessions tweets by Trump. They make much better sense to me as being pushing each other to arms length in the public perception, in effect handing Sessions independence from the White House. Since there are massive double standards between the (D)ummies and the (R)epublicrats, he cannot ever follow in the corrupt footsteps of predecessors like Ramsey Clark, John Mitchell, Janet Reno, John Ashcroft, Eric Holder, and Loretta Lynch, all friends or cronies or idealogical allies of their appointing President. IMHO, President-Elect Trump ( "she's suffered enough, no prosecution" ) and now-President Trump and Sessions have actually handled this very well and threaded the needle nicely thus far, and this hearing was designed to thwart zealots on both sides ( one worrying about investigations, the other demanding them ). It is such an obvious juggling act even Stevie Wonder could see it.
However, that is not enough for the handwringers. They are cheering for an 'attack dog' with 'killer instinct' as they sit in their comfy cheap seats, while they have not a single clue what that AG job actually is in law. Ah whatever. I guess as long as these yapping chihuahuas can manage to vote each election day we'll have to tolerate them.
so sessions living in swamp town is supposedly not a swamp dweller ...
You know what? I battled mightily for a year and a half the 'tards at RedState and PoopScoop who ritually stated Trump's 50+ years in the sewer of Manhattan means he cannot be clean. Didn't matter that both Trump and I are from NYC and that many patriots are birthed in unexpected places. So trolls like you are really saying that Trump must be 2.5x as swampy as Sessions which is what I would expect they are saying over there right now. Of course it never occurs to you that some people born in the swamp are not swampy. And that some who work in the swamp are not swampy. And most of all that some from outside the swamp are swampy. This is the long way of saying don't judge a book by its cover. The shorter way is that your smear exactly matches Soros/Brock on the left and the Cruztards at RedState and PoopScoop on the whatever-they-are.
WAAAAAY off topic? (5 “A’s,” nice touch...) Who was discussing it on the thread before I saw it?
Ummm, the guy I replied to perhaps? All mine were replies to an increasing unhinged patriot basher. That's who.
Heads up - you accidentally included the word “Republican” in your handle. Substituting the word “Novelist” instead, to go along with the precursor “Democratic-” would be my suggestion. Thanks!
“Just the n00bs I guess.”
You’re referring to me as a “n00b”? Since 2000?
You’re referring to me as a “n00b”? Since 2000?
Ooops, sorry FRiend. You know you can't see the handles when in the reply box. I should have checked before clicking reply.
It's mostly n00bs though, and I don't just mean here. n00bs to the electoral battlefield, the culture war, and reality of the cold American civil war itself. That's what I mean.
So many folks are hysterical, acting glass half-full for no logical reason when there is much to be thankful for. All those worrisome alleged scandals, problems and hoaxes being fretted over were ALWAYS going to happen. But instead of crying, I happen to like our position right here right now, including, no, especially, the Russia hoax.
Heads up - you accidentally included the word “Republican” in your handle. Substituting the word “Novelist” instead, to go along with the precursor “Democratic-” would be my suggestion. Thanks!
Hey smartypants, you have no real clue what that handle actually represents, do you? Off you go to wikipedia I guess ( the fact you need to do this should be embarrassing but I expect you won't be ).
Or, did you just allege that I am a (D)ummycrat or something?
....The shorter way is that your smear exactly matches Soros/Brock on the left and the Cruztards at RedState and PoopScoop on the whatever-they-are.
WAAAAAY off topic? (5 “A’s,” nice touch...) Who was discussing it on the thread before I saw it?
Ummm, the guy I replied to perhaps? All mine were replies to an increasing unhinged patriot basher. That’s who.
——————————]
Seriously? You CLEARLY are a sessions supporter. Good for you. Free country. You think he is one of America’s patriots? Whatever. I don’t, and I am not smearing anyone simply because I point out some of his “missed opportunities.”
Frankly, I really resent being told I am smearing sessions and then being thrown in with Soros and Brock and “Cruztards” and kooks because I don’t agree with you that he is a patriot—oh and anyone who doesn’t like like sessions, is against Bannon and our President Trump and part of leftist kabal or kristol/mccain group?? Lot of nerve jumping to that conclusion and first implying and then directly stating I lumped in with this anti-patriot group...I suspect I was a Trump supporter long before you were because I was a Trump supporter long before FR was a pro Trump website...so you can just back off FRiend.
If anyone is unhinged, you might want to take a look at what you wrote—the tenor and great lengths you went to to defend sessions and ironically smear me because I disagree with you.
I suggest you chill out and relax over Thanksgiving.
As for me? I am done with this as I have a turkey dinner to prepare.
Wikipedia? That liberal utopia of politically correct propaganda and mass revisionist history? OK, if you insist:
It began in 1791 as one faction in Congress and included many politicians who had been opposed to the new constitution.
The party splintered in 1824 into the Jacksonian movement (which became the Democratic Party in 1828).....
My apologies if I’m misreading you somehow, but anyone defending this disgraceful DoJ and its AG Sessions right now is deserving of question, if not ridicule.
She and Sessions said what they said. Why shouldn't Jones use it?
They are part of the whacked-out liberal freak contingent, at the Trump Thanksgiving Day Dinner table.
Frankly, I really resent being told I am smearing sessions and then being thrown in with Soros and Brock and “Cruztards” and kooks because I don’t agree with you that he is a patriot—oh and anyone who doesn’t like like sessions, is against Bannon and our President Trump and part of leftist kabal or kristol/mccain group?? Lot of nerve jumping to that conclusion and first implying and then directly stating I lumped in with this anti-patriot group...I suspect I was a Trump supporter long before you were because I was a Trump supporter long before FR was a pro Trump website
Well I can understand you be offended at being lumped in with Soros/Brock if you're not one of their minions, so assuming that is the case I apologize. It's just that you must understand that they, and Schumer and Waters and the whole entire cabal went to bat AGAINST Sessions, delaying him a month, even playing the race card against someone who fought the freakin Klan. And they all want him gone because whoever would follow will ignore sanctuary cities, illegal Aliens, pedos, and everything else.
Anyway, I see I came off too strong in that last paragraph because of the swampy connotations. They pulled this on Trump ( and by extension all us New Yorkers, even those of us fighting here behind enemy lines ), Cruz with NY Values, then all the Cruztards with the Trump's 50+ years in Manhattan, and now I hear it with Sessions for a mere 20 years in the District Of Criminals. Same crap, same insult, all still untrue, bigoted and ignorant. I guess I'm very sensitive to that when its done to me, Trump or Sessions. Its like calling someone in the French resistance a Nazi when the truth is the exact opposite!
One last thing before Thanksgiving I forgot from your earlier post. It was about 'Sessions not being on Trump's Team'. You see that is the heart of the issue that so many do not understand. The Attorney General is NOT the President's lawyer, has never been even back to the first cabinet under Washington. So no, he is *not* truly on his team, and even though there is no law against them talking, meeting, or anything else, the AG is the government's lawyer and protects the USA FedGov from all harm, even Congress, even the White House. That is the job. So he is not a Team Trump member any longer, will never campaign again ( while in office ) and Trump/Sessions are distancing themselves from each other quite effectively. And most importantly, he cannot purposely block an investigation or SC out of loyalty or whatever. This is where people went off the rails and into crazyville.
Anyway, get busy with Thanksgiving, hope you accept my apology, and enjoy the 2nd of hopefully nine total Thanksgiving/Christmas seasons with either President-Elect or President Trump down at 1600.
Wikipedia? That liberal utopia of politically correct propaganda and mass revisionist history? OK, if you insist:
Well I didn't insist, but the moment is gone now. Point was, you obviously didn't get the reference, and assumed it was a wishy-washy (D)-(R) party mashup.
Wikipedia lied to you with their pro-Federalist party propaganda ( think Hamilton on Broadway ). Last off-topic post, but to finish, Hamilton and his like-minded big government cronies were ballooning the new FedGov by the midpoint of Washington's first term circa 1790. By the end Jefferson wanted out but Washington talked him into staying. He and Madison took the "conservatives" of the time ( Hamilton was a relative "liberal" with his dreams of a growing central government, banks, etc ) some who were wary of the Constitution ( Wikipedia says that like its a bad thing!?! Remember there was only a Bill Of Rights written to appease the worriers who were legion, and this is not a bad thing ) and built up the Democratic-Republican party.
They were actually called Republicans, and Jeffersonians, and Jeffersonian-Republicans, that is what you find in the newspapers and all their notes, especially Jefferson's anas. The "DR" nomenclature is a retcon used today although it did appear maybe a dozen known times in contemporaneous literature.
Wikipedia also lied about the Jackson thing ( like the huge lie propagated by Jefferson-Jackson day dinners and such ). The first party 'system' dissolved after Monroe's 2nd term. Candidates in 1824 are listed as "No Party" or "Democratic-Republican" depending on the source, but there is no bridge between the eras whatsoever. Jackson was not connected to Jefferson-Madison-Monroe, nor was JQ Adams ( except for being in his cabinet ). They started over with a splintered decentralized system, and once Jackson got burned by JQ Adams and Henry Clay, he joined up with Martin Van Buren and built the Democrat Party ( no relation ).
I only went through all that because using Democratic-Republican is purposeful, just think Jeffersonian or 'Madisonian' or 'original intent'. When you went for the parsing of that handle into modern part constructs, I was amazed because I don't expect that here at FreeRepublic where the spirit of the Founders surely lives. In summary, Anti-Constitutional Democratic-Novelist is as far away from accurate as is humanly possible.
Now about Sessions, I think we wore out this thread enough. Ping me from another thread about Sessions and then tell me how disgraceful and horrible you think he is. Then I will correct you and tell you how wrong you are. :-) Happy Thanksgiving.
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.