Sessions not alone: Russian ambassador also met with numerous Democrats

You should all be aware of the new allegations regarding Senator Jeff Sessions having some new imagined left-wing conspiracy tie with the Russians. Sessions is now Attorney General for President Trump.

But what you might not be aware of is that Sessions was a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, which would mean he met with many Ambassadors before becoming Attorney General.

Democrats, and the left-stream media want to claim that this is a conflict of interest, and that Sessions lied to Congress. But just because Sessions met with Ambassadors before becoming Attorney General doesn't mean he lied to Congress. More so when Sessions made it clear that he answered at his confirmation hearing in context of campaign-related discussions.

One democrat, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo, went to twitter to claim that she had been a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and that in 10 years she had no calls or meetings with Russian ambassadors. But this has been proven wrong.

...
A pair of tweets first unearthed by National Review’s Charles C.W. Cooke showed McCaskill twice wrote messages about meetings with Kislyak, in 2013 and 2015.

“Off to meeting w/Russian Ambassador. Upset about the arbitrary/cruel decision to end all U.S. adoptions, even those in process,” McCaskill tweeted on Jan. 30, 2013.

On Aug. 6, 2015, McCaskill wrote: “Today calls with British, Russian, and German ambassadors re: Iran deal. #doingmyhomework.”
...

www.foxnews.com...

In fact, it is not unusual for Senators to have contact with foreign ambassadors, and the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak has in fact met with seven Democrat Senators.

Sergey Kislyak has met with U.S. Senators on both sides of the political aisles. But of course democrats and the left-stream media had to try to use this to get rid of yet another of President Trump's nominees.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

This isn't about other people, it's about Sessions.

And before you get triggered, I've been told by multiple people here that by bringing up "the other side", when they did something the same, is A. a deflection and B. it just doesn't matter...

I doubt that'll happen to you though...coz you're staunchly anti left and so are they....

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

This isn't about other people, it's about Sessions.

And before you get triggered, I've been told by multiple people here that by bringing up "the other side", when they did something the same, is A. a deflection and B. it just doesn't matter...

I doubt that'll happen to you though...coz you're staunchly anti left and so are they....

So basically, anyone who has ever had contact with the Russian ambassador is disqualified to run for president because they might have suspicious dealings with that government?

OK.

Then Hillary wasn't a viable candidate at all.

Obviously Russians are equal opportunity offenders.

As a Russian ambassador, Obama's State Department set up every official meeting that ambassador had with US officials.

Kind of convenient.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

This isn't about other people, it's about Sessions.

Lol.

Many meet with Russians. You're just attempting to make it only about Sessions for partisan reasons, but it's BS and we all know it. Chasing a fabricated Russian ghost.

That's the ambassador's job after all. He represents the Russian State. If you want to talk to Russia or find their position on something you go to him.

If people didn't talk to him then America would have no dialogue with Russia and the actual Ambassador would just be a guy on a very expensive paid holiday to Washington.

The hysteria from the left about this, then the counter hysteria from the right is pretty farcical.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

This isn't about other people, it's about Sessions.

And before you get triggered, I've been told by multiple people here that by bringing up "the other side", when they did something the same, is A. a deflection and B. it just doesn't matter...

I doubt that'll happen to you though...coz you're staunchly anti left and so are they....

Ahhhh... The pitfalls of left/right (divided/conquered) style blame game partisanship.

When will our species ever evolve?

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

This isn't about other people, it's about Sessions.

And before you get triggered, I've been told by multiple people here that by bringing up "the other side", when they did something the same, is A. a deflection and B. it just doesn't matter...

I doubt that'll happen to you though...coz you're staunchly anti left and so are they....

Ahhhh... The pitfalls of left/right (divided/conquered) style blame game partisanship.

When will our species ever evolve?

When everyone is either black or orange.

Or sanity eliminates the two party system altogether, whichever comes first.

a reply to: Ohanka


Exactly Right! His JOB is to talk and hob-nob with U.S. officials. Unless someone has evidence that a U.S. government official, or Trump campaign person, colluded improperly with the Russian Ambassador, there's nothing to investigate...or even talk about.

If Democrats want to conduct a thorough investigation, they can launch their own and pay for it with their own money and from donations. The numb-skulls who protest and whine will donate to that cause.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

This is exactly what the OP is doing...

The others that have replied to me don't get it...

a reply to: carewemust

Just watch.

Next time something positive starts to happen another official will suddenly "have ties to Russia" and the WaPo and NYT will run another big expose with anonymous sources and once again have to bury in paragraph 6 or 7 that there is no evidence of any wrongdoing or collusion, but no one will pay any attention to that. And we will go through all of this all over again.

The pattern is getting threadbare at this point it's so obvious.

If they actually had the goods, they wouldn't be trying to play word games to get Sessions on perjury. They'd have the evidence and be prosecuting with grand jury already.

a reply to: MysticPearl

Did you read what I wrote beyond the first line?

You're just confirming what I said.

a reply to: ketsuko

That's absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

Let me speak slower...

Time and time again, the right bring up something someone from the left did. I, and others have replied in those threads showing someone from the right doing the same thing...the replies from the right, after it got pointed out have been complete dismissal of it, or saying that it's nothing to do with them.

God forbid if it were to happen the other way round, huh?

Triggered much?

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

None of those people lied under oath about their meeting with Russian officials, while asking to the head the Department of Justice as the Attorney General, while at the same time, there is an active investigation into Russian interference during the campaign, a campaign in which they were a top surrogate of that was benefiting from well known Russian sourced hackings.

originally posted by: Chadwickus

This isn't about other people, it's about Sessions.

And this is about the fact that Sessions was a Senator under Obama's administration, and as such it is not unusual for a Senator to have met a foreign diplomat... Even a Russian ambassador. As the evidence in the article states, even democrat Senators have met with the Russian ambassador...

originally posted by: Chadwickus
And before you get triggered, I've been told by multiple people here that by bringing up "the other side", when they did something the same, is A. a deflection and B. it just doesn't matter...

No, it seems that it was you who "got triggered". Session as a Senator would have met foreign ambassadors, just like democrat Senators did meet with the same Russian ambassador.

Not to mention that Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo, went so far as to lie that she had never discussed with, or met the Russian ambassador, when in fact she did have discussions with that same Russian ambassador.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
I doubt that'll happen to you though...coz you're staunchly anti left and so are they....

And you are staunchly pro-left... so what are you trying to imply?...

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

None of those people lied under oath about their meeting with Russian officials, while asking to the head the Department of Justice as the Attorney General, while at the same time, there is an active investigation into Russian interference during the campaign, a campaign in which they were a top surrogate of that was benefiting from well known Russian sourced hackings.

None of them were questioned under oath either, so that's an easy claim to make.

a reply to: windword

And sessions informed Congress that he answered at his confirmation hearing in context of campaign-related discussions.

As for the "Russian interference"... Please... The intelligence report is nothing but conjecture made by pro-clinton/Obama officials who made claims based on what "they thought the Russians would do" and was not based on any real evidence.