via Twitter Wonker @BewareSailor On Tuesday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions sat his cattywampus ass down, lied to the Senate Intelligence Committee about why Donald Trump fired James Comey, refused to answer questions about his non-privileged conversations
The problem was that he did not make clear any legal basis for his refusal to answer. He cited "policy", but could not say specifically where that policy was documented.
If that policy was to be the rationale for his refusal to directly answer, I would think he would have made sure that he could cite its source. Instead he insisted on spewing clouds of verbal obfuscation at every question.
Sen. Harris did not keep him from answering. She stopped him from trying to run out the clock with his non-answers.
i agree sessions was perhaps deliberately long winded. unquestionably evasive.
however, it was due to Ms. Harris' initially very strong line of questioning that he DID clarify his legal position. she nailed him to the floor by asking for documentation of the policy. fantastic! she also got him to explain what he was doing was refusing to answer just IN CASE pres wanted to invoke executive privilege but didn't know he needed to - a rubbish position. no one else got him to spit it out. fantastic!
i actually enjoyed very much the first 2/3s of her questioning. tbe strongest on the panel. wonder woman.
the last 1/3 was a complete breakdown. he couldn't even open his mouth.
Harris is asking yes or no questions.She is on a time limit and the long, dissembling answers count against her limit. Sessions knows that and is using it against her.
And he wouldn't answer Harris' questions. A few people in this section have pointed out how the Senators were working with limited time to get answers to important questions. Sessions gave long winding explanations to yes or no questions. This isn't about respect or disrespect for Sessions. However if you do want to look at who was disrespectful, look at your friend John McCain. He's an invited guest and two weeks in a row he interrupted Senator Harris' questioning of a witness. You're entitled to your opinion. You're wrong.
OT re Ms. Harris but Sessions' reply regarding the possibility of tapes: "I don't know Senator Rubio, probably so", Sessions added, when Rubio asked if any such tapes would have to be preserved. My god, that was the whole John 3:16 of the Watergate era. Or, as Chris Hayes commented about Sessions' reply "What, did this guy sleep through Watergate?"
"It had always been my hope that Feminism would redefine what power was, and the appropriate way of taking it." Your words.Hmmm.
The "appropropriate way of taking it, " ( power )
Care to define ?
" That can't be told anything "Where's the equanimity now, MOFO?!?!?
misogyny is hating women, not believing witnesses have a right to answer the question. get over yourself.
Sure, just as soon as you do.
if people were incapable of respecting people they don't like or that have done evil, there would be no such thing as diplomacy.
did you like Obama? i did. he treated everyone with respect.
hate trump? he only treats people with respect if he likes them.
The problem was that he did not make clear any legal basis for his refusal to answer. He cited "policy", but could not say specifically where that policy was documented.
If that policy was to be the rationale for his refusal to directly answer, I would think he would have made sure that he could cite its source. Instead he insisted on spewing clouds of verbal obfuscation at every question.
Sen. Harris did not keep him from answering. She stopped him from trying to run out the clock with his non-answers.
thank you for your sane reply.
i agree sessions was perhaps deliberately long winded. unquestionably evasive.
however, it was due to Ms. Harris' initially very strong line of questioning that he DID clarify his legal position. she nailed him to the floor by asking for documentation of the policy. fantastic! she also got him to explain what he was doing was refusing to answer just IN CASE pres wanted to invoke executive privilege but didn't know he needed to - a rubbish position. no one else got him to spit it out. fantastic!
i actually enjoyed very much the first 2/3s of her questioning. tbe strongest on the panel. wonder woman.
the last 1/3 was a complete breakdown. he couldn't even open his mouth.
"Yes." "No." Those are complete sentences, which Sessions refused to use.
I just have one. irritable. grammarian. longing. today. -- a short life for the gratuitous period for emphasis. It hurts my old-school brain.
Harris is asking yes or no questions.She is on a time limit and the long, dissembling answers count against her limit. Sessions knows that and is using it against her.
Good thing we don't have a huge opioid addiction crisis right now! <sarcasm>
considering how frequently feminists declare shaming someone is evil, it remains their weapon of choice.
its really too bad women aren't raised like men. they'd know someone disagreeing with you really isn't a big deal.
And he wouldn't answer Harris' questions. A few people in this section have pointed out how the Senators were working with limited time to get answers to important questions. Sessions gave long winding explanations to yes or no questions. This isn't about respect or disrespect for Sessions. However if you do want to look at who was disrespectful, look at your friend John McCain. He's an invited guest and two weeks in a row he interrupted Senator Harris' questioning of a witness. You're entitled to your opinion. You're wrong.
In response to an earlier post. Well on my way to being a strange old woman
OT re Ms. Harris but Sessions' reply regarding the possibility of tapes: "I don't know Senator Rubio, probably so", Sessions added, when Rubio asked if any such tapes would have to be preserved. My god, that was the whole John 3:16 of the Watergate era. Or, as Chris Hayes commented about Sessions' reply "What, did this guy sleep through Watergate?"
I love how Kristen Powers called him on it and how Miller couldn't quite explain himself. And I love how she did it more than once.