America - The Official Thread

[Imari]

Al Franken was asking about members of the campaign. He did not meet with them in that capacity. Sessions is not stupid, He knows there is a record of everything he did. He said in the press conference that he was a little thrown off by the question.

Franken asked "If there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government during the course of this campaign, what would you do?"

Sessions was unequivocally affiliated with the Trump campaign, regardless of what other affiliations he may also have had. Sessions admits as much himself in his answer. He communicated with the Russian government, through their proxy the ambassador.



I'm sorry, Sessions straight up lied. It was a clear question. He didn't even really answer the question, but the information that he gave in response is hardly open to interpretation. He, a self-described person affiliated with the Trump campaign, communicated with the Russian government during the course of the campaign.

This is the Attorney General of the United States, not some backwater senator. I don't think that the Attorney General gets allowed slack as far as lying under oath.

One can argue that it's an unimportant lie, or that he had relevant reasons for lying, but I don't see how you can argue that it wasn't a lie. Sessions, the Attorney General, lied under oath. Regardless of what he lied about, I find that fact a little disturbing.

Basically nobody ever gets prosecuted for lying to Congress, but the fact that he in all likelihood committed perjury and that it doesn't seem to matter even though he's a central legal figure in the country is pretty :censored:ing weird.

 

[fatkrakr]

I don't think that the Attorney General gets allowed slack as far as lying under oath.

 

[DK]

He gets a pass because of that southern charm and subtle racism. Grandpas do and say the darndest things.

Let's remind ourselves that Jeff Sessions was considered "too racist" to be a federal judge...back in 1986 when the "Southern Strategy" was in full swing.

 

[McLaren]

Private accounts can be far more secure than accounts run by public administrations. That's been said for a long time. Obviously anybody using a private email account for such important business is going to be spending a bit extra for a secure service.



D'oh.

It's a shame I never implied otherwise. Andrea focused on the fact he had an AOL account as if that was the issue. Indiana state law permitted him to do so.

 

[Joey D]

Mike Pence using a private e-mail account as governor doesn't affect national security, it's dumb but not really a major concern. Now if he uses a private e-mail account as VP, then that's a major issue, but since there's nothing about that yet it's kind of a non-issue.

It's like the media doesn't understand what is and what isn't a threat to national security, they basically just want something so they can go "see Pence is the same as Clinton!" Pence is a horrible person, there's got to be something they can find that's an actual issue.

 

[GTsail]

Its my understanding that there were a couple of aides present during the meeting that A.G. Sessions had with Ambassador Kislyak.

I hope that these aides kept good notes and I would recommend that Sessions release these notes.

If the notes are not released, it seems to me that Sessions will be forever compromised and would always be subject to Russian blackmail because they could threaten to release their own "slanted" transcript of the meetings.

 

[JKgo]

...I usually only read and not participate in this thread but for some weird reason, I felt compelled to post this here.

Earlier today I was clearing out my Inbox of some unnecessary clutter when I noticed this:

Spoiler: A screengrab of the email I got from Rapaport.

The newsletter I always get from Rapaport folks talk about the positive business sentiment in the jewelry sector as a whole - not sure how truthful that is, though....

Thought that I should share this with you.

 

[Imari]

No, it doesn't.

I mean, are we taking Clinton quotes simply because he managed to avoid impeachment? It's not in question that he lied, as far as I'm aware. Shall we dig up some Nixon footage as well? I already referenced his "if the President does it, it's not illegal" bit.

I continue to find it odd that people are so partisan that they will defend outright dishonesty from their own party. That's when you know that you have a system that is broken, where the enforcement of rules depends on what class, category or party you belong to.

 

[Tornado]

It's like the media doesn't understand what is and what isn't a threat to national security, they basically just want something so they can go "see Pence is the same as Clinton!" Pence is a horrible person, there's got to be something they can find that's an actual issue.

It is amusing that the implication is supposed to be something like "her emails were alright and this whole thing was a witchhunt" and "OMG LOOK HE HAD EMAILS TOO!" at the same time, though.


Like, what is the Gotcha supposed to be? "See, people in Trump's campaign are just as shady and irresponsible as the candidate we wanted to elect as well!"

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

How?! With the FASFA(PELL grant)/HOPE scholarship(GA) I received $4700 tuition per quarter. And a check for $1800 per quarter for living expenses. This was at at county run technical college. I took the 2 year automotive class.

I honestly can't figure out how people have to pay for school. I dropped out at 16 and later got my GED at the same technical college. The only clause was I had to maintain a 3.5 GPA.

I know at 4 year colleges most students have to pay, but practically everyone at our 2 year college was going for free.

Uh no, depends on when you decide to go, if you go straight out of high school then either option is bound to be "free" as in you're bound to get scholarships with a decent gpa out of public schooling. You're likelihood of a grant is based on various things but if you're parents make "too much" then you wont get grants. Now the funny thing is they can make this supposedly great amount of money yet it's only enough to support you living with them, but not paying for you to live under their room and for you to go to college.

So what does FASFA really get you? Get's you an easy ticket for student loans from the Federal Gov't, but this isn't free obviously and it works for both Junior College and College (university). So while for the time it feels free, when your first student loan payments hit, then you'll say otherwise.

And this is just speaking of someone 17/18 out of high school. Now what about those in their mid 20s and older who now want to go to school because it's the only way to be something. Then it gets worse, there is less chance you'll get grants at all, and more likely to get a path to student loans. Also scholarships are essentially not going to be given to you, because it's more likely that the flaky high school grad, will fail out in their first or second year.

Even in your own situation, there is a stipulation to "free" which is a GPA of 3.5. In my first degree, I too had to maintain a 3.5gpa and did. I graduated with a 3.6 in metallurgy and welding. I was also given a 18k per year scholarship for the University based on my graduating status in High School. The story for why I couldn't take the uni scholarship after high school is personal based so I wont go into it. Yet when I transferred to a four year, hardly any of my credits transferred, and we're talking about electives that both schools would want me to have, and extra classes I took to prepare for my engineering degree. Luckily Calc 1 transferred and I got to jump right to calc II. And my English classes transferred as well as one of my chem classes. Since I was now on my own and married with a child I was given a federal grant that prior I wasn't able to get at a 2 year.

However, this grant only pays for half my tuition, the rest is a student loan, which pays for the rest and my books. As you can see it's not easy, which is why so many people jumped on the Sanders bandwagon when he claimed he could get them free tuition.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Like, what is the Gotcha supposed to be? "See, people in Trump's campaign are just as shady and irresponsible as the candidate we wanted to elect as well!"

More along the lines that Trump whipped up a furore over Clinton's use of a private server, accusing her of being a serious threat to national security - but now Sessions has been using a private server and it has been compromised. True, it was a perfectly legal arrangement and the account was de-activated, but that's not what people are up in arms about. They're upset that Trump will go out of his way to condemn a political opponent for doing it, but he will protect a political ally when they do something similar. Especially since Sessions apparently used his AOL account to discuss issues related to national security.

People want consistency from Trump. If, by his definition, Clinton endangered national security, then so too did Sessions - so why are they being treated differently?

 

[Tornado]

I'd probably take that argument a bit more seriously if enough thought had been put into it to at least get the person accused of a misdeed correct.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I'd probably take that argument a bit more seriously if enough thought had been put into it to at least get the person accused of a misdeed correct.

So you're looking for excuses to ignore responses, then?

 

[Tornado]

What response am I ignoring? You haven't said anything that wasn't already said in this thread before I quoted Joey, with the main exception being that you don't seem to actually know which person Trump is supposed to throw under the bus for doing something that is not terribly similar to Hilary's already overblown email scandal in the first place. Do you think you are entitled a post specifically breaking down things you said that have already been covered in this thread when you couldn't even be bothered to see which person actually had EMAILGATE 2: Email Harder?

 

[McLaren]

So you're looking for excuses to ignore responses, then?

Coming from the person who deliberately deletes 90% of a person's post just to respond to 1 sentence?

Stahp it, you.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Franken asked "If there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government during the course of this campaign, what would you do?"

Sessions was unequivocally affiliated with the Trump campaign, regardless of what other affiliations he may also have had. Sessions admits as much himself in his answer. He communicated with the Russian government, through their proxy the ambassador.



I'm sorry, Sessions straight up lied. It was a clear question. He didn't even really answer the question, but the information that he gave in response is hardly open to interpretation. He, a self-described person affiliated with the Trump campaign, communicated with the Russian government during the course of the campaign.

This is the Attorney General of the United States, not some backwater senator. I don't think that the Attorney General gets allowed slack as far as lying under oath.

One can argue that it's an unimportant lie, or that he had relevant reasons for lying, but I don't see how you can argue that it wasn't a lie. Sessions, the Attorney General, lied under oath. Regardless of what he lied about, I find that fact a little disturbing.

Basically nobody ever gets prosecuted for lying to Congress, but the fact that he in all likelihood committed perjury and that it doesn't seem to matter even though he's a central legal figure in the country is pretty :censored:ing weird.

Senator Franken starts with information about exchanges between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Senator Franken doesn't even know if the information he is talking about is true or fake news. He damn near apologizes. Then he asks Senator Sessions a hypothetical question. Senator Sessions answers with his non-answer. That is all in the video you posted.

Sessions explains his answer in the first 2 minutes of his press conference. But feel free to watch the whole thing.



And knowing libs, like I do, you probably didn't listen to the whole thing (not aiming this at Imari, but you that are so closed minded you don't even want to know the truth). So here is the last question of the presser that explains his answer best.

 

[Imari]

And knowing libs, like I do, you probably didn't listen to the whole thing.

How kind of you to assume that you know both my opinions, how I will act and how I will respond.

I'll leave it to you in order to psychically determine my response to this, as it's clearly unnecessary for me to waste time typing it out. If you could include my response in your next post that would help heaps.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

How kind of you to assume that you know both my opinions, how I will act and how I will respond.

I'll leave it to you in order to psychically determine my response to this, as it's clearly unnecessary for me to waste time typing it out. If you could include my response in your next post that would help heaps.

I'm sorry, I wasn't referring to you with that comment. Though I know it looked like I was because I quoted you. It was more of a generalization. I have edited my post.

So you're looking for excuses to ignore responses, then?

And yet, I haven't heard a peep out of you about my questions to you on the previous page.

 

[Tornado]

I know some of us are teachers, so in lieu of a post specifically breaking down a post that said nothing new in the discussion besides not knowing which person is actually at the top of this particular email scandal, here's a helpful infographic that can even be used in a classroom setting:

Get back to me when someone on Trump's cabinet actually does the same thing as what Hilary was accused of. Then we can note how much of a hypocrite Trump will inevitably be after the 18 month trainwreck that follows as Democrats have subcommittees on the issue and set the FBI on the entire administration.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I don't have your mad MS Paint skills, but I will once again point out the issue at hand, albeit with the burgeoning recognition that you're being sarcastic.

The problem is not that Pence used a commercial service.

The problem is not that Pence used it to discuss matters of national security.

The problem is not that said commercial service was compromised.

The problem is that Trump is a hypocrite. Legally or illegally, both Clinton and Pence used commercial servers and both compromised national security - but Trump treats them differently.

 

[Imari]

Oops.

 

[McLaren]

I don't have your mad MS Paint skills, but I will once again point out the issue at hand, albeit with the burgeoning recognition that you're being sarcastic.

The problem is not that Pence used a commercial service.

The problem is not that Pence used it to discuss matters of national security.

The problem is not that said commercial service was compromised.

The problem is that Trump is a hypocrite. Legally or illegally, both Clinton and Pence used commercial servers and both compromised national security - but Trump treats them differently.

Probably because one of them didn't lie about it, keep classified information on a private server, & then delete said information to keep from being discovered. The other was given legal permission & came out within' 24 hours that he had indeed used said account. I'm pretty sure anybody will treat someone differently if they come forward and admit their actions instead of drawing it out over the course of months going, "I didn't know anything about it!" Yes, much in the same way Bill didn't know "anything" about a certain young intern.

The problem isn't Trump - it's you attempting to believe they both committed the exact same action under the exact same regulations, when they didn't. Details don't matter to you b/c that would get in the way of your desire to bitch about Trump.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Testing 1, 2, 3. Hello Mr. @prisonermonkeys , I guess he has me set to ignore.

Just because I beat him like a bitch in our last argument, doesn't mean I want to disengage., but if he does, oh well.

 

[Tornado]

The problem is not that Pence used it to discuss matters of national security.

Legally or illegally, both Clinton and Pence used commercial servers and both compromised national security

Interesting. I figured the problem was that they both were operating without any need for transparency. When did Pence do that?

Because Hilary "compromised national security" when she used an unapproved server to share federally classified documents, disallowed no matter how hack proof it may be. Plus she was, you know, Secretary of State; so somewhat more privy to federally classified matters of national security than a governor of a state that most people in the country only see out of an airplane. The original article even said as much. But she did so seemingly accidentally and her staff knew not to do it; and her repeated attempts to coverup any wrongdoings, including deleting emails relevant to the inquiry and lying about the contents of her emails in general, blew up in her face far more than what she actually did.





Pence, according to the Indianapolis Star article for the emails they received, talked about Indiana's responses to terrorist attacks in other countries, Indiana not wanting Syrian refugees, and the security measures in place at his house. In Indiana. The "homeland security matters" that were mentioned in the heading were apparently him being told by the DoH about two guys being arrested that the FBI had already announced they arrested. A bunch of emails are redacted and refused to be released, but exactly how does that automatically mean that Pence was giving away American troop movements to ISIS or something?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Just because I beat him like a bitch in our last argument

How many Internet Points do you want for that? Three?

 

[Chrunch Houston]

How many Internet Points do you want for that? Three?

I want you to answer two questions.

@prisonermonkeys

1. Do you really believe that the Trump campaign, and Donald Trump worked with the Russians to steal the election from Clinton?

2. Do you really believe the Russians had any effect on this presidential election?

I am fine with a yes or no answer. But you can elaborate if you like.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I want you to answer two questions.

And I want you to stop treating this discussion like it's a battle to the death, because to be perfectly blunt, the stakes couldn't be any lower.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

And I want you to stop treating this discussion like it's a battle to the death, because to be perfectly blunt, the stakes couldn't be any lower.

Really?

Coward is the only word that comes to my mind,

 

[McLaren]

And I want you to stop treating this discussion like it's a battle to the death, because to be perfectly blunt, the stakes couldn't be any lower.

So you're looking for excuses to ignore responses, then?

 

[mister dog]

The opinions & current events subforum on GTP reminds me of a snake pit .
I'll get out of here now before I get bitten. Love you all chaps!