Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[froot loops]

There's a crowd outside DOJ chanting Lock Him Up. Heh, life comes at you pretty quick. I tend to doubt anything really comes of this, but it puts an exclamation point on the governing is hard maxim. Most of these congressman in the GOP are going to get fatigued quickly of Trump if they have to continually defend or deflect this stuff. A lot of his plans are DOA without help from Democrats or broad popular support for whatever boondoggle he wants to advance. Stuff like this doesn't help.

This is a nothing burger compared to what happens if the hardliners ACA repeal happens under reconciliation with no CBO score.

[iam416]

if the hardliners ACA repeal happens under reconciliation with no CBO score.

That ain't happening.

[CGVT]

FWIW...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sessions-spoke-twice-with-russian-ambassador-during-trumps-presidential-campaign-justice-officials-say/2017/03/01/77205eda-feac-11e6-99b4-9e613afeb09f_story.html

The Washington Post contacted all 26 members of the 2016 Senate Armed Services Committee to see whether any lawmakers besides Sessions met with Kislyak in 2016. Of the 20 lawmakers who responded, every senator, including Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.), said they did not meet with the Russian ambassador last year. The other lawmakers on the panel did not respond as of Wednesday evening.

[froot loops]

That ain't happening.

Probably not, but it sounds like they are going to try. They won't even let Rand Paul see the plan.

[hack]

I do love chastising application of "labels" in the same sentence as "intern fucking" and, for that matter, "national security."

But, I'm glad we all understand that Senators meet with ambassadors.

Fucking an intern is fucking an intern. Labeling a person means assuming you know most/all of you need to know about them by deciding for yourself what they think and believe. That's not the same thing as fucking an intern.

But neither that false comparison, whether the meeting was routine, whether senators mix with ambassadors on a regular basis, whether we had 9 Benghazi hearings as part of a political persecution of one side so the other could take over and declare itself above the law and do things far worse, or anything else, matters in how this specific situation is to be evaluated. Sessions lied under oath. The law says its illegal and the application of the law says so too.

The better and smarter debate is why he lied under oath, because he did nothing wrong. This isn't a coverup that was worse than the crime. There was no crime, but he covered up anyways and in doing so committed the crime. Perhaps there's a reason.

[iam416]

The phrase "twist[ting] themselves in intellectual knots" comes to mind.

[iam416]

Heh heh. At least Claire McCaskill wasn't under oath:

[AlabamAlum]

Heh heh. At least Claire McCaskill wasn't under oath:

lol. Excellent.

[Wild Hoss]

This is going to be the longest four years, ever.

[Hannibal]

This is going to be the longest four years, ever.

Don't worry --- Mike Riley won't last that long.

[iam416]

SEN. PATRICK J. LEAHY: Several of the President-elect’s nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?” the Vermont Democrat asked

SESSIONS: No.

Truth unknown as we don't know what was actually said to the Ambassador. It's clear that meeting with the Ambassador doesn't make the answer to that question Yes.

SEN. AL FRANKEN: If there was any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this (2016) campaign, what would you do?

SESSIONS: I’m not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.

Truth misleading. The question is certainly campaign-focused. The answer is campaign-focused (surrogate for the campaign). I'd read that as Sessions not having communications with the Russians as a surrogate for the campaign. However, as phrased it's misleading. But, you get into this line of questioning about campaigns and everything is in that context and you answer in that context.

Anywho.

[iam416]

Don't worry --- Mike Riley won't last that long.

Heh heh heh

[hack]

It's simple. Your call if you want to do your best to make it not simple, but this is pretty damn simple.

McCaskill was in the buzzfeed link. Remarkably stupid.

[iam416]

BTW, re Claire, I definitely think her first tweet is in the context of Armed Services Committee work -- she's never met with the Russian ambassador in the context. I think that's the sensible read. She has, of course, met with the Russian ambassador in other contexts -- presuming the meetings/calls identified in her twittering actually happened.

So, I don't read that as Claire lying out her ass. I get what she meant from the context even if, literally, she's lying out her ass.

Nor do Claire's tweets have any impact on whether Sessions acted improperly or not. That said, they are slightly illuminating as to the value of context.

[AlabamAlum]

Don't worry --- Mike Riley won't last that long.

lmao