Posted on 12/17/2017 9:39:11 AM PST by Oshkalaboomboom
In hindsight, the most important thing said this year came on Jan. 3. Chuck Schumer, leader of Senate Democrats, warned President-elect Trump he would pay a price for disputing intelligence officials’ findings of Russian meddling.
“Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community — they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” Schumer declared.
Schumer was right about a vendetta, but wrong about timing. It’s now clear that intelligence officials already had started “getting back” at the next commander in chief.
They started in the summer of 2016.
In early August, Mike Morell, who was acting head of the CIA under Barack Obama, broke with agency tradition by entering the political fray to endorse Hillary Clinton.
He praised her as “highly qualified” and said Trump was “not only unqualified for the job, but he may well pose a threat to our national security.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
I used to argue long and hard that Sessions had no choice but to recuse, since he’d lied on his security clearance application. But the official investigation just wrapped up, and announced that Sessions had done nothing to justify his recusal. Presumably the official investigation is the last word on the subject. In fact, I just saw a headline about Sessions being urged to un-recuse. There shouldn’t be this many questions on the issue; Sessions screwed up.
Must have been a great while ago. Can’t seem to see any reported these days.
LOL!
Believe what you want about Sessions. Until I see some concrete evidence that he's actually functioning as Attlrney General, I'll believe my lying eyes.
Or what if Rip Vsan Sessions isn’t doing squat and no charges are brought against Hillary, Obama, the Deep State and other criminals in Washington by the time Trumps first term is coming to a close? Don’t we the people have a right to know why he isn’t then if after all that time, he hasn’t done what we elected Trump to do?
It just doesn’t make sense to jump to conclusions without giving things time to play out.
There will be a time to hold Sessions accountable.
At this point it’s way too soon to assume he’s asleep at the wheel.
Actual quotes from Trump and Sessions on Friday last week:
Trump “what the FBI has done is really, really disgraceful, and a lot of people are very angry.”
Sessions “sometimes, things that might appear to be bad in the press have more innocent explanations”
I know who I believe.
There’s plenty of evidence. It’s just that none of it points to Sessions being any different in private than he is in public.
The question is not about his personality.
It’s about his actions, and you don’t know what they are.
Don’t make judgments from ignorance.
The point is that Sessions’ public statements provide ample evidence. He staunchly defends the crooked and craven FBI while never having a decent word to say about Trump. Sessions acts as if he has a bromance going with Rosenstein, yet it is the latter who let Mueller get so wildly and completely out of hand.
The public evidence is sufficient. Sessions is aiding and abetting those who are working to bring down the Trump administration.
Sessions is either not terribly bright and is fundamentally ineffective or he’s in bed with the swamp: A, or B.
The more salient point is that what you describe is consistent with the opposing argument being true.
If Sessions is truly draining the swamp, he needs to use disinformation.
Your premise is that if he is going to drain the swamp he needs to be up front about it. That he needs to announce everything he’s doing. But this makes no sense because it’s based on a deeper premise depicting the swamp as a simple and easy problem.
This shows two of your premises to be false.
This idea that Sessions is doing the opposite of every public indication is psychotic. Sessions has had ample time to do something. All he’s done is praise, strengthen and encourage those who are undermining Trump. The idea that behind the scenes he’s some kind of anti-swamp superhero is delusional. If he were doing anything at all anti-swamp, there would be evidence. People have to be subpoenaed; they have to give testimony; computers and other devices must be impounded. The idea that the swamp itself wouldn’t scream bloody murder if Sessions were doing anything against it is ludicrous.
The reason the entire Congress—all of the Democrats and the entire GOP—lined up behind Sessions [when Trump tweeted against Jeff] and raged against Trump is so simple. They are the swamp, and Sessions is protecting them. No one threatened Trump more harshly over even thinking of replacing Sessions than Chuck Schumer. The swamp takes care of its own.
If Sessions were part of the swamp, he would have been confirmed by the senate without problems.
This did not happen.
Sessions fooled Trump and many, many conservatives. But as they say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. After Sessions had been in place long enough to demonstrate his bias, Trump was profoundly disappointed and Chuck Schumer was thrilled and delighted. Schumer going so far as to threaten Trump against firing Sessions tells any honest, objective person all they need to know.
Maybe it’s a different scenario.
Could be Sessions didn’t start fooling anyone until after taking office as AG, when he made the swamp think he was on their side.
This is what he would need to do if he were in fact draining the swamp.
Now you’re arguing against yourself. Read your last two posts. They’re self-contradictory.
Your view is that no amount of evidence means anything. Your entire argument rests on what you ***imagine*** is going on privately. Your imagination is out of control, and it’s telling you only what you want to hear. You’ll never convince anyone other than yourself. The rest of us find your imagination unconvincing at best.
If Sessions is draining the swamp, he needs to use disinformation. The swamp was afraid of him and resisted his confirmation him as AG. Could be that after becoming AG is when he started fooling the swamp to think he’s one of them.
These are the consistent points of my last three posts.
The most deficient aspect of the creep state mind is thinking the commission of atrocities and lying about it is good.
If you are arguing to convince yourself, you’re probably succeeding. If you’re trying to convince anyone else, it’s a miserable failure. All you’ve done is prove that you believe your Sessions-narrative regardless. Most of us had that figured out long ago.
Why do you keep referring to some group of people? Who are you talking about?
Are you not confident to stand alone in this discussion?
Takeaway point of our all this: Rational thought dictates we should expect the US AG to keep most of what he does secret and hidden from public view.
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.