Would you investigate and, if necessary, prosecute information that campaign operatives of the President of the United States facilitated payments to foreign operatives in exchange for hacking political opponents? Would you appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the extent of the President's involvement? To investigate whether the President has received assurances from Russia that Putin won't use blackmail information against him because Trump has already been so cooperative over the last seven years?
Will you investigate and prosecute credible information that the President of the United States enters office having already been compromised by Russia? --Bob
Re: A question for Sessions
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2017 7:26 pm
by silverscreenselect
Bob78164 wrote:Would you investigate and, if necessary, prosecute information that campaign operatives of the President of the United States facilitated payments to foreign operatives in exchange for hacking political opponents? Would you appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the extent of the President's involvement? To investigate whether the President has received assurances from Russia that Putin won't use blackmail information against him because Trump has already been so cooperative over the last seven years?
Will you investigate and prosecute credible information that the President of the United States enters office having already been compromised by Russia? --Bob
Re: A question for Sessions
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2017 7:32 pm
by Bob78164
Actually, now that I've poked around a little on the Internet, it's simpler than that. Attorney General Lynch can appoint someone. If she does, only the Attorney General could fire the Special Counsel, and under federal regulations, the grounds for doing so are quite narrow. --Bob
Re: A question for Sessions
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2017 9:37 pm
by BackInTex
Bob78164 wrote:Actually, now that I've poked around a little on the Internet, it's simpler than that. Attorney General Lynch can appoint someone. If she does, only the Attorney General could fire the Special Counsel, and under federal regulations, the grounds for doing so are quite narrow. --Bob
AG Lynch is a tool. She IS part of the problem, meeting privately with the spouse of the target of an ongoing investigation.
Trump won. Get over it.
Re: A question for Sessions
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:22 am
by Bob78164
BackInTex wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:Actually, now that I've poked around a little on the Internet, it's simpler than that. Attorney General Lynch can appoint someone. If she does, only the Attorney General could fire the Special Counsel, and under federal regulations, the grounds for doing so are quite narrow. --Bob
AG Lynch is a tool. She IS part of the problem, meeting privately with the spouse of the target of an ongoing investigation.
Trump won. Get over it.
There is credible evidence that American citizens conspired with a foreign government to violate federal law, including not limited to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, in order to affect the presidential election. And since those citizens were part of Trump's campaign team, and since there is likewise credible evidence that Trump has been compromised by that same foreign government, it's quite clear that a special prosecutor is warranted. Fortunately, Attorney General Lynch retains the authority to appoint a special prosecutor for the next nine days. I'll do whatever I can to get her to use it.
Trump shouldn't have a problem with this action. After all, if he really is as innocent as he claims to be, then there will be nothing for a special prosecutor to find. --Bob
Re: A question for Sessions
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:01 am
by Estonut
Bob78164 wrote:There is credible evidence that American citizens conspired with a foreign government to violate federal law, including not limited to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, in order to affect the presidential election.
What credible evidence? The unlabeled, uncredited document you linked to? That looks like something your kid cooked up to jerk your chain. You didn't feel there was enough evidence to indict Hillary, yet now you want to indict Trump based on this? Gimme a break!
Some of this material is dated July. If it was real, Democrats would have made it public during the election. Revealing it now just distracts the press from important questions, like the Russian interference with the Clinton campaign (which Trump reluctantly concedes after his latest intelligence briefing) and Trump's plans to separate the White House from his business empire. I hope to hear those questions asked at today's news conference.
Re: A question for Sessions
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:46 am
by BackInTex
Bob78164 wrote:I'll do whatever I can to get her to use it.
--Bob
Post here, post on FB, and what else?
Trump won. Get over it.
Re: A question for Sessions
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:19 am
by Pastor Fireball
To quote Jerry Falwell, "I think every good Christian ought to be concerned."
And to paraphrase Barry Goldwater, "I think every good Christian ought to kick Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III right in the ass."
Some of this material is dated July. If it was real, Democrats would have made it public during the election. Revealing it now just distracts the press from important questions, like the Russian interference with the Clinton campaign (which Trump reluctantly concedes after his latest intelligence briefing) and Trump's plans to separate the White House from his business empire. I hope to hear those questions asked at today's news conference.
They may be asked, but they won't be answered and then the media will drop it because tonight Trump will blast someone else in a tweet and divert all the attention.
Re: A question for Sessions
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:17 am
by BackInTex
Q: Have you ever socialized with, been a repeated guest of, or accepted advice from a known and unrepentant domestic or foreign terrorist?
Sessions: No
Re: A question for Sessions
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:25 am
by BackInTex
Hmmm.......what's changed in a year?
Re: A question for Sessions
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 12:51 pm
by silverscreenselect
I just heard Corey Booker (I work out at lunch and the TV was showing the hearings), and he just (de facto) declared his candidacy (and rather forcefully in my opinion) for the 2020 election. I expect he'll be a very visible presence the next couple of years. He's the type of new blood the Democrats need right now.
Re: A question for Sessions
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:51 pm
by BackInTex
silverscreenselect wrote:I just heard Corey Booker .... He's the type of new blood the Democrats need right now.
Wishy-washy?
< hand-waving head wobbling gesture> I couldn't be more honored to partner with Senator Sessions on this important award.</hand-waving had wobbling gesture>
< hand-waving head wobbling gesture> Senator Sessions is a racist!</hand-waving had wobbling gesture>
Re: A question for Sessions
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:03 pm
by silverscreenselect
BackInTex wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:I just heard Corey Booker .... He's the type of new blood the Democrats need right now.
Wishy-washy?
< hand-waving head wobbling gesture> I couldn't be more honored to partner with Senator Sessions on this important award.</hand-waving had wobbling gesture>
< hand-waving head wobbling gesture> Senator Sessions is a racist!</hand-waving had wobbling gesture>
Not the way he described it. And, I think he gave a good enough answer to pass muster with those in the middle.
Plus co-sponsoring the award of a handful of medals to people who got their heads kicked in 50 years ago isn't exactly major legislation the two of them worked on together.
Re: A question for Sessions
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 2:35 am
by Estonut
Bob78164 wrote:I'll do whatever I can to get her to use it.
Yes, let's investigate all the #FAKE NEWS. Let's see if any of these allegations have any legs. But if they don't, we need to find out who leaked them and make them pay a big price.
In other news, they have decided to investigate Comey, but not Lynch to find out what happened when she met with Bill Clinton. They can knock themselves out for all I care. It's all a dog and pony show anyway. Nothing ever happens. At least when democrats get investigated.
Re: A question for Sessions
Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2017 4:36 am
by silverscreenselect
flockofseagulls104 wrote: Nothing ever happens. At least when democrats get investigated.
Perhaps the reason for that is that there was never anything worth investigating. Look at all the time and money the Republicans spent of investigating Benghazi, only to find that Hillary did nothing wrong. Just the same as the the e-mail probe turned up no criminal wrongdoing.
Since the Republicans don't have either Hillary or Obama to hurl fake outrage at, their new target will be the news media for the shocking crime of actually reporting on the new.
Re: A question for Sessions
Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2017 4:43 am
by Estonut
silverscreenselect wrote:... only to find that Hillary did nothing wrong. Just the same as the the e-mail probe turned up no criminal wrongdoing.
If these 2 statements were true, Hillary would be the President-Elect right now.
Re: A question for Sessions
Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2017 10:07 am
by Bob Juch
Estonut wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:... only to find that Hillary did nothing wrong. Just the same as the the e-mail probe turned up no criminal wrongdoing.
If these 2 statements were true, Hillary would be the President-Elect right now.
Maybe in your alternate universe.
Re: A question for Sessions
Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2017 2:18 am
by Bob78164
Bob78164 wrote:Actually, now that I've poked around a little on the Internet, it's simpler than that. Attorney General Lynch can appoint someone. If she does, only the Attorney General could fire the Special Counsel, and under federal regulations, the grounds for doing so are quite narrow. --Bob
Any action by the Obama or Trump administration would be seen as political and would be self-defeating.
I agree that anything done by Trump would be seen as political, but I don't think that would stop him or that it would necessarily hurt him significantly. Nor do I think that the appointment of a special prosecutor would be self-defeating. After all, the Benghazi Committee was transparently political in intent, yet it was still able to do significant damage.
I am encouraged that Congress apparently intends to make its probe a serious one. But I'd feel better if an independent prosecutor, who won't have an incentive to go easy for political reasons, were investigating. --Bob
--Bob