Jimmy Dore: CNN Host Can't Say What Law Jeff Sessions Broke

[spudea]

Gotta get some common sense progressive POV to balance out the corporatist left wing on this forum. :rolleyes:

Enter Jimmy Dore:


https://youtu.be/dky3vpDeJ-s

[CPUd]

This guy explains it, not sure how viable it is, or if it's even worth it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVAVY2gVH9M

[spudea]

This guy explains it, not sure how viable it is, or if it's even worth it.

nice. Lawrence O'Donnell is one of my journalist heros.

[spudea]

Do you think the Russian Ambassador is a spy?


To make matters more interesting, CNN has characterized Kislyak as more than a mere foreign ministry official, but as “a top spy and recruiter of spies,” citing current and former U.S. intelligence officials.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/03/02/sessions-s-contact-the-russian-ambassador-a-spy-or-not-a-spy.html

837411688102133760

[AngryCanadian]

hahah seems like CNN's Russia hacked our election line isn't doing so well. EH!

Karma.

[AngryCanadian]

Do you think the Russian Ambassador is a spy?



http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/03/02/sessions-s-contact-the-russian-ambassador-a-spy-or-not-a-spy.html

837411688102133760
Thats Same Weiss who claimed Russia is ISIS air force. YAWN.

[Jan2017]

This guy explains it, not sure how viable it is, or if it's even worth it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVAVY2gVH9M

Not even worth it - this guy does NOT explain anything really as Sessions statement was consistent with prior question asked.

The volunteered statement to Franken's hypothetical that wasn't answered by Sessions,
is (very important to a perjurious investigation of a material fact falsified)
supported by his previous affidavit testimony to a Sen. Leahy question - they would have to both be materially false for there to be a perjury.

Sessions was only volunteering (instead of answering) to a "What would you do ?" when he stated
"He didn't know of any of those instances and although he was regarded as a surrogate, he didn't have those conversations either."

[CPUd]

Not even worth it - this guy does NOT explain anything really as Sessions statement was consistent with prior question asked.

The volunteered statement to Franken's hypothetical that wasn't answered by Sessions,
is (very important to a perjurious investigation of a material fact falsified)
supported by his previous affidavit testimony to a Sen. Leahy question - they would have to both be materially false for there to be a perjury.

Sessions was only volunteering (instead of answering) to a "What would you do ?" when he stated
"He didn't know of any of those instances and although he was regarded as a surrogate, he didn't have those conversations either."

He's saying exactly what the prosecutors would do if they were to pursue a perjury charge. They might not be successful, but that is what they would do. Win or lose, they could tie this admin up in court for most of the term if they wanted to.

[Jan2017]

He's saying exactly what the prosecutors would do if they were to pursue a perjury charge. They might not be successful, but that is what they would do. Win or lose, they could tie this admin up in court for most of the term if they wanted to.
You are not even close to what prosecutors would do.

The first they could try to do is find a contradiction of the material fact in question somewhere else in the testimony.
They find the opposite, an affirmation and clarification of a jaded interpretation by whoever or outright ambiguous meaning.

The first "defense" or what the court could look for - is that somewhere else under oath the same item was addressed. It was.

Now, you would need someone under oath to contradict the fact claimed that Sessions did not have those conversations.

So, get the Russian ambassador to testify under oath before Congress - LOL
For me, it's time to mock the Russia hysteria -
I will explicitly ask for Russian dressing on salads now forever, even at the Pizza Hut (or Cici's) salad bar for the chuckle.

[CPUd]

You are not even close to what prosecutors would do.

The first they could try to do is find a contradiction of the material fact in question somewhere else in the testimony.
They find the opposite, an affirmation and clarification of a jaded interpretation or ambiguous meaning.

The first "defense" or what the court could look for - is that somewhere else under oath the same item was addressed. It was.

Now, you would need someone under oath to contradict the fact claimed that Sessions did not have those conversations.

So, get the Russian ambassador to testify under oath before Congress - LOL
For me, it's time to mock the Russia hysteria -
I will explicitly ask for Russian dressing on salads now forever, even at the Pizza Hut (or Cici's) salad bar for the chuckle.

How long do you think that will take? How many subpoenas and pretrial hearings?

[Jan2017]

How long do you think that will take? How many subpoenas and pretrial hearings?
The testimony is under 4 fours and already in the Congressional record.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2TVBlBvHUM

Pretrial hearings ? LOL
The upcoming Special Prosecutor is coming up to the onramp with all lanes of the information superhighway leading to Hillary perjury.

[CPUd]

The testimony is under 4 fours and already in the Congressional record.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2TVBlBvHUM

Pretrial hearings ? LOL
The upcoming Special Prosecutor is coming up to the onramp with all lanes of the information superhighway leading to Hillary perjury.

If he would have simply recused himself and stopped talking about it, the Dems wouldn't be trying to call him back. Instead, he gave this statement:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/03/02/transcript-of-jeff-sessionss-recusal-press-conference-annotated