Lion of the Blogosphere

Jeff Sessions: fair and balanced article in Vanity Fair

with 41 comments

Early today I wrote in a comment about Sessions’ testimony to Congress:

We all know that the innuendo behind the question was that the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians to steal the election from Hillary, and Sessions answered “no” to the innuendo. No “perjury” here.

An article in Vanity Fair by T.A. Frank agrees with me.

Frank explains that, after a long spiel from Al Franken about how CNN has documents that allegedly say that “There was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump’s surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government,” Franken than asks what Sessions would do as AG.

Sessions responds that he doesn’t know about any of that stuff and that he “didn’t have—did not have communications with the Russians”

It’s obvious that Sessions meant that he didn’t talk to the Russians about Trump’s campaign, in response to Franken’s extremely long-winded question which really was designed to create innuendo that Trump was involved with the Russians in a nefarious manner and not to elicit any information from Sessions that Franken actually cared about.

If Franken had asked Sessions “have you ever talked to any Russian official for any reason during the last year,” then he might have remembered talking to the Russisan ambassador, although he may have still forgotten, because the Russian ambassador seems to be like this jovial uncle who’s always hanging out at Washington events and chatting it up with everybody. We saw today that TWO Democrats said they never talked to the ambassador, and then people from conservative news sites/blog turned up evidence that they lied.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

March 3, 2017 at 8:26 pm

Posted in Politics

41 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I agree, this is just more Anti-Trump-Derangement-Syndrome. But the real question is what Neo-Gaff thinks of all this.

    sabril

    March 3, 2017 at 8:35 pm

    • NeoGaf honestly believes that there was conspiracy on the part of the entire Trump team work with Russia to rig the election. Many of them think that this will bring Trump down, although there are voices of relative sanity. They all agree that Sessions, Jared, Flynn and God knows who else were heavily involved with working with Russia to rig the election.

      The only thing about this story that *might* have some legs is the private meeting Sessions had with the Russian ambassador. Supposedly nobody else on the Armed Services Committee had a 1 on 1 with the Russian ambassador, so that could be suspicious.

      Otis the Sweaty

      March 3, 2017 at 9:49 pm

      • It’s not just NeoGaf, but the entire news media that believes that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russkies to steal the election, but in what form would that collusion take place? What could they have done to ensure a Trump win? I don’t get it. It just seems like another conspiracy theory.

        Mike Street Station

        March 4, 2017 at 8:49 am

    • As goes Neo-Gaf, so goes the nation.

      Gozo

      March 3, 2017 at 11:13 pm

      • I’m more with sabril on this after checking out NeoGaf for myself. As I said in a comment on another post, only a handful of the threads are political, and even in them, there is little in the way of substantive opinions being expressed. It’s bizarre to think that of all places is some kind of liberal HQ.

        Hermes

        March 4, 2017 at 10:58 am

      • Perhaps Otis thinks of that forum as a bellwether for a certain type of less sophisticated liberal.

    • But the real question is what Neo-Gaff thinks of all this.

      That’s like putting up the Bat Signal for Otis.

      Rifleman

      March 3, 2017 at 11:38 pm

  2. The whole Russian thing is absurd. The DNC was hacked, probably by some loser in his pajamas in mom’s basement, whether in So Cal or Kiev makes little difference. They weren’t hacked by Republicans colluding with KGB spies four crying out loud. And all that happened was that the DNC was embarrased by Wiki leaks. Couldn’t happen to a nicer group. There was no interference in the election. Hell, the NYTimes, CNN and other outlets did far worse in embarrassing Trump with things he had said, and and no one is calling for an investigation of their interference in the election. Let’s face it, hackers gonna hack. Secure your crap. Don’t tell strangers your passwords! and other obvious stuff.

    not too late

    March 3, 2017 at 9:04 pm

    • The issue really is not interference in the elections. The real issue is that there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that Trump has connections to Russian organized crime figures and is deeply in debt to Russian banks. He is compromised politically. But that was known well before he was nominated. For obvious reasons the right wants to avoid that topic, but it is curious why the left has focused on farcical issues like hacking.

      Peter Akuleyev

      March 4, 2017 at 6:17 am

      • What “circumstantial evidence?” I’ve not heard anything out of the media about that. If they thought there was a chance of it, they would be talking about it non stop. And if they thought there was evidence in Trump’s tax returns, they would have already leaked and been all over the New York Times by now. It’s still Obama’s IRS after all.

        Mike Street Station

        March 4, 2017 at 8:52 am

  3. More fake news!

    jjbees

    March 3, 2017 at 9:21 pm

  4. It’s likely that Obama has done a number of things to ensure the anti-Russia campaign would continue into the initial months of Trump’s presidency, and he will continue to work in DC to undermine Trump.

    Nevertheless, I don’t think the anti-Russia hysteria will work out well for Obama, largely because I doubt the Kremlin really did all that much to “hack” the election. The only two charges against Putin interfering in the election that have any chance of being true are that Russians hacked the DNC and Podesta’s email. Frankly, neither of these did all that much to alter the course of the election. If Trump gleaned any benefit from it, the effect was counteracted by the charge he was a Russian patsy.

    And honestly, I don’t think the Kremlin is particularly thrilled about working with Trump, even if they’re relieved they don’t have to deal with their archenemy in Hillary.

    In recent weeks, Putin has been suppressing pro-Trump news in Russia, as Russian rightists see Trumpism as a model for Russia to implement. Russian rightists dislike Caucasian and Central Asian economic migrants, and wouldn’t mind building their own wall of sorts. Putin wants to rule over a huge, multiethnic empire, not a Russian nation-state. I doubt the narrative of the Brexit and Trump (a national community rises up to overthrow a corrupt establishment which had sought the erasure of that national identity) is one Putin wants his people to think about too much.

    Sid

    March 3, 2017 at 9:23 pm

    • The MSM is busy alienating Trump’s base to the point of no return, meanwhile Trump is busy deporting 25% of the MSM’s base. Can it get any better than this?

      Trump wins 2020 with 51.5% of the popular vote. You heard it here first.

      Paul Ryan's Sickly Old Lap Dog

      March 4, 2017 at 12:52 am

    • A lot of Russians agree with you. The latest theory among I have heard Russians throwing around is that Putin did interfere with the election, but just as mischief, because the Russians never expected Trump to actually win. Russia simply wanted to play up Trump as a nationalist hero, and point to his loss in order to convince Russians that the US was a pseudo-democracy after Clinton’s inevitable victory. The Trump presidency is deeply problematic for Russia, for the very reasons you describe. Also the Russians probably never assumed that Clinton’s team would be so incompetent as to actually lose. The Russians seemed to have bought into the narrative that Clintons are evil master minds.

      On the other hand Russia’s chief strategic aims are a divided, weakened EU and to get the US to withdraw from Russia’s border regions. Brexit and Trump are both better for Russia than the alternatives.

      Peter Akuleyev

      March 4, 2017 at 6:28 am

      • Right. I think Russia did interfere with the election, to show that American democracy is a farce. I’m laughing as I’m dictating this, because I happen to think it is. Don’t we all?

        gothamette

        March 4, 2017 at 9:42 am

      • “Also the Russians probably never assumed that Clinton’s team would be so incompetent as to actually lose. The Russians seemed to have bought into the narrative that Clintons are evil master minds.”

        Russians are also mad at the US for what happened to Yanukovych. Putin also believed Hillary was personally responsible for the demonstrations against him when he retook the presidency in 2012. So yes, the Russians would have been eager in 2016 to demonstrate the US is hypocritical and not a real democracy.

        “On the other hand Russia’s chief strategic aims are a divided, weakened EU and to get the US to withdraw from Russia’s border regions. Brexit and Trump are both better for Russia than the alternatives.”

        Brexit and Trump are objectively better for Russia than if the EU remained intact and under Merkel, and if the US had been under Hillary.

        That said, there’s also the concept of “blowback” in intelligence work, whereby actions taken abroad could eventually come back and turn against you. The US supporting jihadis in Afghanistan against the Soviets helped us win the Cold War but resulted in 9/11.

        In a way, Trumpism could blowback on Russia. It helps give Russia more breathing room both in Syria and its Near Abroad, but it will embolden domestic rightists who want Russia to be for Russians.

        Heck, look at some of Anatoly Karlin’s recent blog posts. He supported Trump and is now back in Russia, planning to live there indefinitely. You can tell he’s thinking about how to import the HBD movement into Russia, and make it such that Russia will stop taking in economic migrants from low-IQ, high-fertility Islamic, former Soviet countries.

        Sid

        March 4, 2017 at 11:03 am

  5. Is it safe to presume that Sessions will survive with his position intact?

    Roli

    March 3, 2017 at 10:37 pm

    • Sessions is going nowhere, further confirming that the Flynn firing was due to competence of the employee and not the MSM’s power. This feels like Trump 10D chess now, but it’s really just a coincidence. Hilarious how this all works out.

      The nation is going to be having massive popcorn shortages if this liberal bloodbath continues.

      Paul Ryan's Sickly Old Lap Dog

      March 4, 2017 at 12:53 am

      • “The nation is going to be having massive popcorn shortages if this liberal bloodbath continues.”

        I think I want to steal that line!

        Mike Street Station

        March 4, 2017 at 8:55 am

  6. ….and then people from conservative news sites/blog turned up evidence that they lied.

    Probably not lying. Pelosi is just senile and the other one is just consumed with Trump hate and blocked out meeting with the old guy.

    He’s like Zelig. He was even at the Trump address to congress seated among the Democrats.

    This is good for Trump. The Dems are making themselves seem obsessed, dishonest and clueless.

    Rifleman

    March 3, 2017 at 11:33 pm

  7. The key things to keep in mind with all this Russian stuff is that the public just isn’t buying it. My mom HATES Trump and she thinks the Russian stuff is a joke.

    This just isn’t sticking.

    What we do have to worry about the Dems running a good candidate in 2020. I really think that Biden just doesn’t want it so we’ve dodged that bullet, but Oprah has made noises and she could be trouble. Booker would also be very tough and if Oprah isn’t the nominee, I think it is guaranteed that he will be the Veep if he doesn’t win the nomination.

    Rest of the Dem bench is shit, fortunately. Gillibrand could be okay, she’s basically Hillary without the baggage, but that will not be enough if Trump maintains his current level of popularity.

    What the Dems need is a candidate whose mere existence excites blacks and the SJW base so that he can then spend the entirety of his campaign going after centrist whites. Obama was the perfect guy to do just that and Oprah could also fill that role.

    Otis the Sweaty

    March 4, 2017 at 12:51 am

    • Gillibrand is really stupid. She was a reasonably moderate to conservative Upstate New York Democrat, then she got hand-picked to be Hillary’s replacement. Schumer got to her and made her his b****. She hasn’t the glimmer of an original thought. I realize you don’t have to be Einstein to run for president, but you do need an active brain cell or two.

      gothamette

      March 4, 2017 at 9:45 am

    • Isn’t Gillibrand brain damaged from being shot in the head?

      I feel sorry for anyone shot by a random crazy, but she probably should not be in any political office.

      no too late

      March 4, 2017 at 4:23 pm

  8. The only meeting these Lefty critics need to worry about was the one they missed about accurate English.

    Robert

    March 4, 2017 at 1:35 am

  9. Sessions is the single most important cabinet official as far as carrying out a Trumpian agenda goes, so it’s curious that the Democrats shot their wad on DeVoss who ultimately, won’t make a difference in education one way or the other. Sessions, on the other hand, is probably not replaceable, so I imagine the Democrats will continue to go after Sessions until they can make something stick.

    Mike Street Station

    March 4, 2017 at 9:03 am

    • Kobach.

      gothamette

      March 4, 2017 at 9:46 am

      • I have to run, but I just saw this on WikiLeaks. I have to say that I thought I was unshockable, but this is truly shocking. everybody please click on the link and read it.

        gothamette

        March 4, 2017 at 10:54 am

      • Kobach seems to have enemies in Trump’s circle, or else he would have been offered a job.

        Richard

        March 4, 2017 at 11:11 am

      • Mikey-Wan: That boy is our last hope.
        Yodette: No. There is another.

        Mike Street Station

        March 4, 2017 at 11:26 am

      • “Kobach seems to have enemies in Trump’s circle, or else he would have been offered a job.”

        The sense I got was that Trump feared Kobach would be a lightning rod for Dem attacks, and be could get General Kelly in (who is also suitably strong on the southern border) without much of a fuss.

        Sid

        March 4, 2017 at 11:56 am

  10. I love Jeff Sessions, but he stated flatly under oath he had no communications with Russian officials when in fact he did have a closed-door meeting with the Russian ambassador in his Senate office. He had weeks to correct the mistake but didn’t.

    Assuming the meeting was perfectly innocent, why doesn’t he reveal who else was present at the meeting, what the purpose of the meeting was, who arranged it and when, and whether a secretary took notes or minutes. If notes weren’t taken, why not? If Sessions is innocent of conspiring with the Russians, why did he immediately recuse himself in the investigation into Russian influence peddling. His immediate voluntary recusal implies he is guilty of something pernicious.

    Mark Caplan

    March 4, 2017 at 10:29 am

    • I don’t think you bothered to read the transcript in the article. Barney Frank was clearly talking about communications with the Russians involving Trump campaign strategy. Frank never asked Sessions a direct question about whether he ever talked to any Russian for any reason.

      • I agree Sessions volunteered an answer to a question that Al Franken (not Barney Frank) never asked, which, if you consider human psychology, makes Sessions look very guilty. It’s like a police detective asking you, where were you last night and your answering, “I didn’t shoot the S.O.B.!”

        Mark Caplan

        March 4, 2017 at 10:54 pm

  11. I’ve NEVER feared the Russians (pre and post Cold War) nearly as much as I’ve feared the American Leftists who rule finance, media, and academia or the Third World people who rapidly fill up welfare roles, schools, prisons, neighborhoods, and nurseries.

    Who has damaged America more, Russia or Mexico? Russia or Bush? Russia or Obama/Clinton? Russia or Barney Frank/Schumer/Feinstein/Waters? Russia or the presidents of NBC/CBS/CNN/MTV, etc?

    fakeemail

    March 4, 2017 at 11:13 am

    • Russia was a legitimate threat during the Cold War. Of course, as Obama himself pointed out to Romney, the Cold War ended in 1991. Furthermore, Russia is a much less powerful country than the Soviet Union was.

      Unfortunately for regular everyday Russians, the end of Soviet rule did not result in a stable society like we have in the West.

      • That was a rich line, coming from Obama. Leftist ilk like him were drawing moral equivalence between the USA and USSR and/or even rooting for the Soviets over America.

        Yes, the Soviet Union was a threat and indeed was involved with Left Wing subversion of America.

        But the point is this: where Americans live, work, go to school, their pocketbook, their culture, etc is HIT HARDEST by domestic enemies of BLM/Antifa/feminist terrorists, illegals from mexico, traitorous politicians/CEOs (esp. Cucks), and the rulers of the popular culture and finance.

        Where the rubber meets the road in most Americans life, Russia or it’s govt are not what are causing pain to America.

        fakeemail

        March 4, 2017 at 12:11 pm

    • Eh, this whole kissing-up-to-Russia thing does run the risk of alienating our old allies in the EU, which has the biggest economy in the world. Of course, the EU may be falling apart in a few years. I still don’t see why we should snub France and Germany to please Russia–Russia is never going to like us, they’re annoyed their sphere of influence shrank and they want it back.

      I know a lot of Western Putinists are big believers in Russia as the saviors of the white race and so on, but remember Putin also helped stall the Syrian civil war to flood Europe with refugees. Putin’s only interested in Putin and, to a lesser extent, Russia. Beware.

      SFG

      March 4, 2017 at 6:18 pm

      • “I still don’t see why we should snub France and Germany to please Russia.”

        Marine Le Pen is at least as pro-Putin as Trump. That would seem to indicate that the non-suicidal French are not afraid of the Russkies. You can’t do anything about the Germans, they’ve been effed up in the head since about the time Konrad Adenauer died.

        curri

        March 4, 2017 at 7:39 pm

  12. “The MSM’s base are SWPLs and they are U.S. citizens.”

    But they’re sure as hell not Americans.

    Vincent

    March 6, 2017 at 12:06 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: