The Thriller
Well-Known Member
What did you think about his hearing today? Thoughts? Reactions?
Jeff Sessions
- Thread starter The Thriller
- Start date
I only watched about 30 minutes live, planning to watch the rest tonight. In the part I watched he refused to answer questions several times about his personal interactions with Trump. That was annoying, but I guess expected. He verified Comey on a few spots, and disagreed with Comey on some other things. I thought his specific verification of the Feb 14 meeting (Trump asking Comey to stay after for a one-on-one meeting) and Comey's request the next day to never be left alone with Trump again were crucial.
DutchJazzer
Banned
lol and the salem witch hunt continues!
Zombie
Well-Known Member
It went about like I'd expected. I'm curious to see whether or not Sessions will be held in contempt for refusing to answer questions under oath.
Some Republican senator tried scoring political points by bringing up Eric Holders refusal to answer questions during the fast and furious hearing, but he conveniently left out that Holder was held in contempt and the courts eventually ruled that he had to comply with congress.
I was also disappointed, but not surprised, at Kamala Harris being 'shushed' by her male colleagues again for having the gumption to do her job while female.
Sent from my VS987 using JazzFanz mobile app
Some Republican senator tried scoring political points by bringing up Eric Holders refusal to answer questions during the fast and furious hearing, but he conveniently left out that Holder was held in contempt and the courts eventually ruled that he had to comply with congress.
I was also disappointed, but not surprised, at Kamala Harris being 'shushed' by her male colleagues again for having the gumption to do her job while female.
Sent from my VS987 using JazzFanz mobile app
Couple of things.
The R senator that brought up Holder should have been shushed. I hated that whole fiasco but this has nothing to do with that. Talk about petty.
Wasn't the Sessions and others, refusal based on it being public hearings as they allege the answer contain security clearance protected info? Are they willing to disclose that info in a private hearing?
I am always doubtful of all involved on things like this. To many times this crap happens and to many times it is something else entirely and gender/religion/race/orientation...are just convenient ways to push back in an attempt to demonize those that did it. I didn't watch it. Just my instant reaction to what you wrote is all.
Zombie
Well-Known Member
Sessions refusal was based on DOJ guidelines that he couldn't cite (because they don't exist) as well as the idea that communications with the president can be withheld if the President claims executive privilege. The problem is the President has not invoked executive privilege over those communications.
You are correct that Admiral Rogers refused to answer questions in an open hearing because of the classified nature of the subject, which is why he appeared in a closed hearing afterward. Something Sessions hasn't agreed to do.
And yeah, I understand why you'd be skeptical. People can disagree as to whether gender had a role in that exchange or not. To my eyes it was part of a rash of occurrences in these last few weeks of Congresswomen being treated differently than their male colleagues.
Sent from my SM-G935V using JazzFanz mobile app
Thanks for the clarification on the reasons they declined to answer.
And yeah that trash happens way to often. Wish they'd get called out for it on the spot when it does happen. But then you have those that are doubtful like myself... SMH...
I think that's being totally overblown. Her tone was inappropriate, and yes I'd say that if she were male. In fact my daughter was in the room with me when I was watching that and my daughter asked why she was yelling.
Zombie
Well-Known Member
Yeah I don't know that her tone was inappropriate. It's her job as a Senator on an investigative committee to ask tough questions of those who appear before it, and to press and be insistent when they refuse to answer questions.
I'd agree that it was overblown if not for the fact that it was just one of three examples this week of women in Congress being called out for behavior I've never seen their male counterparts called out for.
Sent from my VS987 using JazzFanz mobile app
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
If you rewatch this you'll notice that his tone changes when speaking with democrats. He suddenly becomes scatterbrained, "he can't recall", and his southern drawl slows to a crawl. Her aggressive tone is understandable when you know that he's intentionally stonewalling. She was pestering him and it was very close to crossing the line. I had no problem with the chair asking her to calm down.
However, I did have a problem with the kid gloves that the chair treated him with. Asking him to maybe provide the policy or rule he was invoking to refuse to answer questions was outrageous. That's not how you request those things. You demand he name the policy. If you can't, hold his *** in contempt. If Sessions spends a day or two in jail maybe his memory would've come back?
Although the worst case of pestering was Jason Chaffetz pestering the head of Planned Parenthood. That was outrageous. Did you see that???
Maybe. But hasn't this been standard practice on both sides of the aisle? It would be pretty odd to start doing that right now when e.g. the Obama AG wasn't thrown in jail for doing a similar thing. (I'm not sure that Lynch did a similar thing but people have certainly implied that.)
No, didn't see that one.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
It's only 7 mins long but this entire exchange was unbelievably inappropriate. All he did was pester her.
[video=youtube_share;62pmAoG2F20]https://youtu.be/62pmAoG2F20
I'm not with you on this one. The graphic at the end was horrible but aside from that and from a few interruptions I didn't have too much of a problem with his questioning. There were a few The "we didn't use federal dollars for that" defense is something that I've objected to regarding Planned Parenthood for a long time. Maybe not directly, but the federal dollars did free up money which you DID use for that.
green
Well-Known Member
Chaffetz is an ***.
First, isn't it ironic that he uses their tax returns to discover where the money has gone? Interesting.
He asks questions but doesn't allow her to answer (such as the increase in salary).
Again, funny that he goes through previous tax returns to see what has happened...
Again, he asks about the $31,000, gives what he thinks the answer is, then moves on.
"Shared employees, shared assets, co-mingling..." lol @ Chaffetz. What a piece of **** human. The irony is incredible.
About the $200,000...he asks questions, then doesn't let her answer.
Every time she gives an answer he doesn't like, he cuts her off and changes the subject.
Then, the graphic at the end...lol, Chaffetz is an ***. What a moron.
I feel bad for anyone who buys his schtick.
[MENTION=14]colton[/MENTION], you said:
So, you admit that tithing money is used to fund City Creek, BYU Athletics, etc, correct?
First, isn't it ironic that he uses their tax returns to discover where the money has gone? Interesting.
He asks questions but doesn't allow her to answer (such as the increase in salary).
Again, funny that he goes through previous tax returns to see what has happened...
Again, he asks about the $31,000, gives what he thinks the answer is, then moves on.
"Shared employees, shared assets, co-mingling..." lol @ Chaffetz. What a piece of **** human. The irony is incredible.
About the $200,000...he asks questions, then doesn't let her answer.
Every time she gives an answer he doesn't like, he cuts her off and changes the subject.
Then, the graphic at the end...lol, Chaffetz is an ***. What a moron.
I feel bad for anyone who buys his schtick.
[MENTION=14]colton[/MENTION], you said:
So, you admit that tithing money is used to fund City Creek, BYU Athletics, etc, correct?
Doesn't seem like a good analogy to me. Maybe there is one somewhere but I don't think that's it.
green
Well-Known Member
Of course not.
Zombie
Well-Known Member
Seems to me that If PP lost federal funding (which really means they just won't be able to see medicaid/medicare patients because that's the form most of federal funding to PP takes) they would be crippled as an organization. I'm not sure what would happen to the corporate arm of the church if no one ever paid tithing again.
Sent from my VS987 using JazzFanz mobile app
Sent from my VS987 using JazzFanz mobile app
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Her compensation is straight bull ****(as it is for most "nonprofits"). I would be 100% behind a bill to limit employee compensation of 501c3 orgs to double the median American income. Srsly she isn't much better than a TV evangelist. She's dispicable.