Nothing will happen with Sessions. He is a Republican.

[yuiyoshida]

The Republicans are in power. Trump won't fire him and no one will lift a finger to prosecute him for anything. Even if they did, the Republican's would vote him not guilty. This Party runs the nation.. and of course he will not resign. Why should he? He has power now.

IF he had been a Democrat, his career would end. But right now, if you were a high Ranking Republican, you could shoot and kill your own Grandmother on nation wide TV and get away with it.

See how they roll?

[TheMastersNemesis]

1. I See We Agree. Based On What We See So Far Expecting Anything Is Wishful Thinking.

[yuiyoshida]

2. Absolutely which is why if they want, they NEVER have to give up power...

They will enact something, what ever it takes to keep power for themselves. We may as well be a one party government, because if Democrats can't vote out a Republican, than you are totally powerless to act.

[Big Blue Marble]

3. Are you old enough to remember when Flynn resigned? N/T

[yuiyoshida]

5. It takes integrity to Resign...

Do you think these Republicans have Integrity?

[Big Blue Marble]

10. Flynn had no integrity.

And neither did Nixon. They both resigned because of political pressure. If the Republicans start to feel
enough heat, they will dump him too.

[yuiyoshida]

14. Who is going to bring the heat?

no one will. Its a corrupt Government and unless you are in the Old Boys Republican club you are nothing. DO you really think we have a Democracy any longer? I don't. Infact, I am sure the Republicans will find a way to keep power from now on.

[Maru Kitteh]

20. Who brought the heat on Flynn?

He was Donnies bestie, his BFF.

Integrity?

[yuiyoshida]

23. They don't have to play ball any more...they OWN THE DAMN BALL...

and the game.

[Maru Kitteh]

27. They owned the ball when Flynn went bye bye.

[yuiyoshida]

29. If you think that will happen with Sessions I think you are wrong...

They don't have to play ball with Democrats any longer, they know that. They can take their ball and go home. Also look at post #26.

[onecaliberal]

4. He lied to congress they are setting precedent someone needs to point out the abject hypocrisy

[yuiyoshida]

6. It doesn't matter what he did...

He is a Republican, and no Republican will prosecute him. He doesn't have the integrity to resign nor will Trump fire him. As I said, he could shoot his own grandmother and get away with murder.

[onecaliberal]

7. Lying to congress is a crime. The Dems need to refuse to show up until the

Republicans accept responsibility for the actions of their own. If they took turns holding press conference outside telling the press that he lied to co greed and they can't work until they prosecute the criminal. The press would be talking about that. Maybe the 1/3 of the Brainless that is his base doesn't care but a majority of the rest of us damn sure do

[yuiyoshida]

11. I KNOW ITS A CRIME...hello?

REPUBLICANS are in CHARGE of everything.,..the Congress, the Senate. When it comes down to a vote they will keep him in Place. Trump will not fire him nor will he have the integrity to resign. DO YOU REALLY think you still live in a Democracy???

[onecaliberal]

13. I think there are still Dems in congress who CAN refuse to show up. Without a quorum

In the chamber they cannot come to order or do anything. Just bring the whole fucking place to a halt and get out in front of microphones and on cable news and tell the American people that they refuse to go back until the criminal is charged. They need to stop being nice. They need to fight fire with fire.

[yuiyoshida]

16. I Think they have ALL THE CARDS...

they have all the chips, and the only thing you can do is fold. It maybe a long , long time before Democrats will ever have any power again, because the Republicans like the power they have. They will not give it up. This is no longer a Democracy.

[onecaliberal]

17. All the more reason for democrats to stop showing up

On edit: the Intel agencies are NOT going to go quietly into that good night either.

[yuiyoshida]

21. All the President has to do is fire the Department heads and

Replace them with his own people. That's already happening now.

[MADem]

28. Technically, because of what he was (a Senator), it was not a crime.

See post 26.

Not the first time we've seen this happen.

[MADem]

26. Not if you're a sitting Senator, it isn't. They're ALLOWED to lie.

Sessions was a sitting Senator when he LIED about his Russian relations.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2001/01/who_can_lie_to_congress.html

Members of Congress are given an absolute privilege to lie with impunity in the House or Senate, if they so desire, by the Speech or Debate Clause in Article I, Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution. It states that, with regard to senators and representatives, "for Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place." The Framers of the Constitution wanted to encourage debate in Congress, and they did not want that debate chilled by the threat of lawsuits.

[yuiyoshida]

31. See? there you go...

and he does not have the integrity to resign. Nor will Trump fire him.

[tonedevil]

36. Are you suggesting...

Flynn had a modicum of integrity? Do you think the Republicans are more powerful now as opposed to two weeks ago? If your answer is yes to either of those questions I would be curious as to your basis.

[yuiyoshida]

37. first of all look at this..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028732778#post26

[tonedevil]

50. That may enter into it...

or not. I wouldn't say you can't be correct, what you say could well be the future. At this point it feels more like Nixon's last days to me. I don't know where this goes with Jeff Sessions, but what makes you think there is a Republican who wouldn't like a President Pence? Donald is a liability and it seems pretty clear that he has Republican enimies in the legislature and he seems intent on making more.

[yuiyoshida]

52. I think a President Pence would be worse...

for a lot of people, including, gays, women's rights and anything having to do with freedom of Religion in this country. (Or anyone who is a atheist.)

[tonedevil]

55. You get no argument...

from me on that. That's why I think they will get rid of Donald. I suspect if Donald goes AG Sessions will as well. Not to be replaced by someone better, just different.

[randome]

79. It's always possible, however, than Pence will be dragged down the mountain along with the rest.

Don't discount anything at this point. This is gaining traction.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[yuiyoshida]

81. I would love to see that happen, because

These are the guys who want to take away my legal weed.

[randome]

83. And of all the things to spend resources on, they make that one of their primary targets.

It would be so much easier to work on the side of doing least harm but they are fundamentally incapable of NOT seeing enemies where there are none. It's a kind of blindness, I think.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[yuiyoshida]

84. blindness and pure stupidity

and Mean as hell. You will always notice Republicans love to be mean as hell, what's up with that?

[MADem]

48. The fact that the "diplomat" he met with is one of the Russian government's

"top spy - recruiters" adds a little stink to the situation.

He might not be charged with PERJURY in terms of his testimony before a Congressional committee, but he could be charged with something in the neighborhood of espionage. Unless, of course, he "does the right thing" and at minimum, recuses to a special prosecutor or better still, steps down.

See this link, with the video--it's interesting.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/01/politics/jeff-sessions-russian-ambassador-meetings/

Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador, is considered by US intelligence to be one of Russia's top spies and spy-recruiters in Washington, according to current and former senior US government officials.

Sessions met with Kislyak twice, in July on the sidelines of the Republican convention, and in September in his office when Sessions was a member of the Senate Armed Services committee. Sessions was an early Trump backer and regular surrogate for him as a candidate.
.....
Kislyak's potential proximity to Russian spying is one reason why Flynn's interactions with him, and Flynn's failure to disclose what he discussed with Kislyak, raised concerns among intelligence officials.

Sessions used to be a member of the SASC, but he was the ONLY SASC member to talk to this "spy-recruiter-diplomat."

I think he's toast, for the "affiliation with espionage as a member of the Trump campaign" reason--not for the perjury. We'll have to see what tomorrow brings. If he tries to ride this out, he's got some serious brass.

I'm thinking that the intelligence community has recordings of "Sesh" talking to his buddy "Serg" that might be problematic. This thing has been moving pretty fast since it was leaked, but I suspect that a lot of the Senators with an INTEL portfolio have known about this for a while--and maybe in the House, too.

[still_one]

41. That isn't this situation. He lied under oath, he wasn't making a speech

or debate

[MADem]

43. Neither was John Ashcroft.

He's STILL covered.

He was a sitting Senator at the time of his testimony.

That dog ain't hunting. You have to go at him from another angle, because the perjury one will just not fly.

[yuiyoshida]

47. I guess people don't believe it...

I try and tell them and they don't want to buy it.

[MADem]

49. He could still be shown the door--just not for perjury.

Canoodling with Russia's top spy-recruiter in the US is an actual problem for him. That diplomat's very limp cover has been blown, too.

They won't get him for lying to Congress, but if someone has recordings of him making deals with his buddy Sergey over the phone, he's fucked. The phrase "Resign to escape charges" comes to mind.

[yuiyoshida]

51. yeah maybe

either that or Trump will just give him a new job.

[MADem]

56. If the narrative that "Sessions colluded with a Russian spy" sticks,

I can't see him staying.

Too much stank.

But who knows, really? Time-as it always does-will tell!

[yuiyoshida]

57. Yup!

guess we shall see.

[muriel_volestrangler]

62. But it was not a "speech or debate". It was a confirmation hearing (nt)

[MADem]

63. It absolutely WAS "speech." It was response to queries (speech) during a hearing.

By "speech" they do not mean "a" speech (e.g. Four Score and Seven Years Ago...) they mean opening your mouth and gabbing.

The ability to lie is "absolute," so long as the sitting Senator is IN THE CAPITOL. If he goes out into the street and starts bullshitting/lying, he's subject to penalties, but it's a Get Outta Jail Free card within those hallowed halls. Again:

Members of Congress are given an absolute privilege to lie with impunity in the House or Senate, if they so desire, by the Speech or Debate Clause in Article I, Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution. It states that, with regard to senators and representatives, "for Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place." The Framers of the Constitution wanted to encourage debate in Congress, and they did not want that debate chilled by the threat of lawsuits. Even if White could prove that Ashcroft's statement was false, the Constitution forbids him from bringing suit.

Statements that senators and representatives make outside of the House or Senate are not privileged, however. If a member of Congress defames you in a press release or on a talk show, you can sue him or her for libel. Of course, that doesn't mean you'll win.

Ashcroft was in the same situation--he was doing a little bullshitting during HIS confirmation hearing for the same job Sessions got.

[muriel_volestrangler]

64. Why would they add "or debate" if they wanted "speech" to mean "any words"?

Your quote is about "Ashcroft's statement, made on the Senate floor". ie "speech or debate".

[MADem]

94. Made in Senate committee, as testimony prior to Ashcroft's

appointment as AG.....

Same deal. Same job.

Speech is "talking." It's not necessarily "Forescore and Seven Years Ago." It could be testimony before a committee (Ashcroft/Sessions, e.g.) or it could be the reading of classified documents (Mike Gravel). You don't have to be in the well, debating, you can be in a committee room at a green baize table, responding to queries.

The bottom line is that they can't be "questioned in any other place" about this--which obviates any punishment for their crimes. The FBI or the judiciary system isn't going to come frog march him off for lying--he could get scolded after-the-fact by the committee chairman, but the horse has left that barn...he's no longer a Senator, and he's confirmed. Grassley made sure of that by ramming his confirmation through (ya gotta have friends, I guess).

[muriel_volestrangler]

95. No, made by Ashcroft in 2000, on the Senate floor

That article is from 2001; it says:

But what about Ashcroft's statement, made on the Senate floor last year, that Missouri Supreme Court Judge Ronnie White had a "tremendous bent toward criminal activity"? Could White sue Ashcroft for that?

No. Members of Congress are given an absolute privilege to lie with impunity in the House or Senate, if they so desire, by the Speech or Debate Clause...

The article separates claims about what Ashcroft said in testimony from what he had earlier said on the floor.

Experts are divided:

According to Josh Chafetz, a Cornell University law professor who studies this provision, this should protect Sessions from prosecution over his testimony.

“There is no doubt that Sessions was a senator at the time, there is no doubt that a court counts as ‘any other place,’ and there is no doubt that the protection applies when members are speaking in committee, not just when they’re on the floor,” he says.

Not every expert agrees with Chafetz.

Larry Tribe, a constitutional scholar at Harvard, tweeted that the Constitution only protects speeches given by Congress members — not sworn testimony they give in their capacity as administration nominees. It’s hard to say who’s right, because there’s no actual case law either way. But the fact that prosecuting Sessions is even arguably unconstitutional creates yet another burden for a case that’s already tough to prosecute.

http://www.vox.com/world/2017/3/2/14790816/jeff-sessions-russia-perjury-law

[MADem]

96. I don't see that dog hunting. I'm sorry-I just don't.

And I think it brings up assertions that Dems are trying to "wipe our asses on the Constitution" if we even try. The clause means that a sitting legislator (and he was one) can't be arrested at work, or going to/from work and he can't be questioned about his behavior while doing those things--remember Ted Kennedy's kid who drove his car up the steps while "going to work" in the pre-dawn hours high as a kite on booze and Ambien? He was "going to work" so he didn't "go to jail" (he got a ride home from the Capitol police, once they figured out who he was). He insisted he wasn't drinking at the time, but it turned out he'd had a few pops at a local bar earlier in the evening. And then there's Wilbur Mills--pulled over quite late at night for driving drunk whereupon his paramour, a stripper named Fanne Fox known as the Argentine Firecracker went swimming in the Tidal Basin--if that were you or me, we'd be hauled off for it, not bundled up and taken home. The interpretation of "going to and from work" is as broad as the definition of what constitutes work. If they're in DC, those legislators, and Congress is even close to being in session, they pretty much get outta jail free, and the cops know it--their protocol for dealing with a member of the legislature is different than that for dealing with you or me. Old Wilbur even managed to hang on to his Ways and Means gig for awhile, until he turned up shitfaced at a burlesque house in Boston - then he deconstructed under his own steam and finally left public life (though he was re-elected once before that happened).

Sessions was a Senator at the time of his testimony. The man was "at work." Tribe always loves to exercise that document to its limits and while there's nothing wrong with trying that in usual circumstances, these are unusual ones where our entire government, save the judiciary and the deep state, are in thrall to the GOP who are apparently in thrall to the Russians. A better tactic is to get him recused, then trip him up on his "amended" responses (come on, Deep State!) and then get him GONE. Let him assist the FBI with their inquiries (i.e., sing like a canary) in order to avoid charges of treason--he could do it quietly and hardly anyone would ever know.

We know that there was a FISA warrant out if they recorded Flynn with Sergey K--how wide is that net? Who else is on the shit list? It's entirely unsurprising that "Melissa Spicer" shook everyone down and checked their phones at the WH--I'd not be surprised there's a warrant out there with Donald's name on it, too.

[muriel_volestrangler]

97. No, he wasn't "at work" - he was applying for a new job, as Attorney General

Other nominees take the same oath, and would be subject to perjury rules. It's possible that he has a loophole - that any senator can lie their asses off under oath in Congress, and get away with it (an honest Congress would hold him in contempt at least, but the Republicans aren't honest). But to say "we can't even consider this - it looks like we're wiping our asses on the Constitution" is defeatist. The average voter does not think of the Constitution as a way to allow members of Congress to lie. It says "always give a Republican the benefit of the doubt, and never make waves".

There is a credible case that it was perjury, and it's worth trying to get it decided in a court. At worst, we get to say "so much for 'drain the swamp' - Trump appoints lying weasels who have to use legal loopholes to avoid a perjury charge a non-privileged person would be found guilty of".

[MADem]

98. Doesn't matter--he was STILL a Senator, in his workplace.

There are no exceptions--so long as he's at his job site, he's covered.

Look at young Mister Kennedy, going "to" work by driving his car up the Capitol steps. Was he bagged for perjury? Why no, he wasn't, because he cannot be questioned in any other place.

Sessions will never be punished for perjury. I'm confident of that. If OTOH they can prove he was a cut-out man for Putin, they can get him for espionage or treason, but they'll never get him for perjury.

[Cosmocat]

68. He was under oath during a confirmation

Hearing, not engaged in "speech or debate" as a senator.

Very clearly, prior to the radicalization of team R the last decade, this is enough to warrant at a minimum he be demanded to resign his current position, but obviously chances of that are slim

[MADem]

93. Doesn't matter. He was engaged in speech (i.e., talking)

and he was a sitting Senator, and he shall not be questioned about his lying ways in any other place.

As the link I provided illustrates, Ashcroft was a Senator in the waning days of his tenure, in the EXACT same situation--testifying before a committee in preparation to assume the role as AG.

Speech in that context does not mean "giving a speech." It means talking. He was talking (and lying) and he is protected. So long as they're in the building, Senators can lie their asses off, they can even release classified material like Mike Gravel did. And get away with it...the Constitution provides them that cover.

If you want to "get" him, ya gotta get him on treason or some OTHER high crime--but the perjury dog won't hunt.

[yuiyoshida]

33. see #26

n/t

[MADem]

8. This information was LEAKED.

As AG, Sessions is in charge of the FBI.

The FBI is investigating the whole Trump campaign - Russia convergence.

Those facts introduce no small degree of tension into this situation. To add to the fun, this fellow Kislyak was up in it with FLYNN, as well--he's like Waldo, or Forrest Gump....

Senior Department of Justice officials allege Attorney General Jeff Sessions was in contact with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the 2016 presidential campaign, and then Sessions later told Congress no such contact occurred, the Washington Post reported on Wednesday.

One of the two discussions in question was a closed-door September meeting with Kislyak in the then-senator's office, and came amid what intelligence agencies now allege was a Putin-directed campaign to throw the election in favor of President Donald Trump by leaking embarrassing information about his Democratic opponents.

Despite efforts by Trump and some prominent Republicans to kill the story, details of Trump and his inner circle's ties to Russia have continued to beleaguer his presidency. Michael Flynn, Trump's national security adviser, resigned after it was leaked he discussed sanctions with Kislyak before Trump's inauguration and later lied about it to other White House officials including Vice President Mike Pence.


https://mic.com/articles/170084/jeff-sessions-talked-with-the-russian-ambassador-twice-and-then-told-congress-he-didn-t#.IrmkrXZF1

[yuiyoshida]

12. LETS say the FBI goes after him... Trump can pardon him...

YOU don't get it, the Republicans are in charge of everything. Its a corrupt government. NO HIGH RANKING REPUBLICAN will BE prosecuted for ANYTHING.

[MADem]

19. No, they aren't "in charge of everything."

There are people in the intelligence community who are doing a bit of "judicious" heavy lifting behind the scenes, and this is an example of that.

Also, speaking of"judicious," if they were in charge of "everything," SCOTUS wouldn't have ruled on the VA gerrymandering as they did. That was a real setback for GOP plans to lock down that state.

I'm not saying things are all hunky dory, but this leak is PRESSURE, and PRESSURE IS GOOD. I suspect a lot of that "tone" shit we saw at Trump's Congressional address had to do with FEAR.

Darrell Issa, a rabid Republican, hinted that this was coming--he wasn't the only one who knew something.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/darrell-issa-bill-maher-jeff-sessions-recuse_us_58b10218e4b0780bac29b0d6

[herding cats]

9. I doubt anything will happen, too.

Unless someone finds out there's something more substantial, such as a recording where he said something they don't want to be heard. If that exists then he's Flynned before he forces Congresses hand to pursue an independent investigation.

[MADem]

24. He """technically""" didn't do anything wrong.

Even though he FLAT OUT LIED to a confirmation committee.

Senators get a "Get outta jail free" card when it comes to communications in session (small S, not the big-un).

They're allowed to tell lies, misstate facts, and even release classified material and not get punished for it. And he was a Senator when he was insisting he did not have relations with that Russian guy.

Remember Mike Gravel? He read CLASSIFIED MATERIAL on the floor of the Senate--the Pentagon Papers. Why wasn't he prosecuted? Because Senators are allowed to shoot off their mouths without fear of reprisal, in order to 'facilitate' robust debate, or something on those lines.

[herding cats]

89. Ah, I hadn't considered that lovely loophole.

That's a good point, too. Still, the optics are bad, and we can at least hope for a recusal. We can also use this to help shine a light once again on the Russian connections to the Trump administration. Which is a very good thing, and why this was leaked. That it was confirmed also adds to the validity if the leaks and reporting.

Eventually, all this will be known and I don't expect it will be a pretty tale. It'll be very interesting, but not pretty in the least.

[MADem]

92. The optics are horrible--but he won't be "gotten" on perjury.

He could be gotten on treason--I'd never rule that out--or he could be gotten on "You skeevy jerk, how can you do that job when you're so tainted?" shaming, so he resigns just to avoid the taunts and jeers.

But the point I'm trying to push home is that there will be no punishment for the crime of perjury. No frog marching, no fines, no prison time.

Will he 'get away' with it? That depends on how pissed off people get. If they can find another crime (not of the "You told a fib" variety) to charge him with, we could still be off to the races. Who knows? Maybe some intelligence agency could lean on him, persuade him to resign and cooperate/sing like a bird as to TrumpCo's marching orders re: The Russians to avoid charges, and then we'd really have some fun.

[TeamPooka]

15. Remember what the trump people said to the ethics branch about Conway shilling for Ivanka?

"She made a mistake. Move on"
Same excuse, different violation of ethics and laws.
Every day for the next four years because Trump doesn't care - because he has no morals.
#conman

[yuiyoshida]

18. There is no democracy any longer...

not when one party has all the power, and they do and they will find a way to keep it, even if they have to rewrite the laws and pass it.

[TeamPooka]

22. and their base will cheer them when they burn the Constitution. nt

[yuiyoshida]

25. Absolutely right...

If they wanted to, they could declare any opposing parties Enemies of the State...and then we start to look like Russia, and a one party nation.

[still_one]

30. I don't believe you need Congress to file perjury charges against the attorney general. Couldn't

the ACLU do it?

[yuiyoshida]

32. what power do they have?

Against a Republican congress and Senate?? besides look at post #26.

[still_one]

39. He committed purjury under oath. Federal Attorney's can do it if they have the evidence

He was under oath, not making a speech or debate

That is why the bush administration only said they would testify at the 9/11 hearings, if they were NOT under oath

[yuiyoshida]

40. again Read...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028732778#post26

[still_one]

42. I did read it. He was under oath. This is the reason the bush administration

only agreed to answer questions during the 9/11 hearing as long as they were NOT under oath

[yuiyoshida]

44. if you read it you will know he is untouchable..

Nothing will happen. Absolutely nothing.

[still_one]

45. It will be for the courts to decide

"http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Speech+or+Debate+Clause"

[yuiyoshida]

46. He will never be brought to court

Who will bring him to Court? He will never see the inside of a court room.

[still_one]

53. agreed

[MADem]

54. No--the Constitution allows sitting Senators to lie their asses off.

See post 26.

The way to get Sessions is not with the perjury approach, it's through his association with a known spy recruiter. That "diplomat" is engaged in espionage--we knew it, we kept an eye on him, and due to this Flynn and now Sessions shit, his cover is in essence blown.

Are there phone recordings? Are they "beauts?"

If he resigns, we can assume the answers are YES and YES.

And if he does resign, I'll bet Trump's "tone" will get even more mellow and measured.

I think the Intel Community is boxing in Hair Furor--they're not outright overthrowing him, but they're preventing him from lifting those sanctions and changing his stance towards Russia, his lip service notwithstanding.

The question then becomes "How long will Putin wait?" He's got a pee pee tape, and he's blackmailing for advantage!!!

"Thank you all for peeing here!"

[still_one]

60. ok, thanks

[lapfog_1]

34. the victory here would be for sessions to recuse himself

from the trump investigation... making a 9/11 style commission more likely

[yuiyoshida]

35. he is allowed to lie...

see #26

[yeoman6987]

70. I don't understand why a senator can lie but that president Clinton was impeached for doing so

Yes it was bullshit and repugs were awful but that what they hooked their train too. Weird.

[yuiyoshida]

73. Weren't the Republicans in the majority during that time too?

and they were probably less despicable than these new guys.

[MADem]

58. I think, even if he does try to brazen it out, that'll be the minimum result. nt

[world wide wally]

38. This is America 2017

[ginnyinWI]

59. Chris Cillizza of WaPo disagrees:

Before this report, most congressional Republicans were resistant to the idea of appointing a special prosecutor to investigate the contacts between Russia and Trump campaign officials and surrogates — insisting that the ongoing FBI investigation and congressional committees looking into the issue were more than enough.

That's going to become an untenable position for Republicans — starting with House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) -- in light of this new information about Sessions. Not only is there a very serious question about whether Sessions misled — purposely or accidentally — his colleagues while under oath, but this is only the latest incident involving unanswered questions about the ties among Trump, his top advisers and Russia.

Former national security adviser Michael Flynn lost his job last month after lying to Vice President Pence — and lots of other people — about the nature of his conversations with Kisylak. Trump has repeatedly refused to condemn Russian President Vladimir Putin while insisting that stories about his ties to Russia are “fake news.”

In short: Where there's smoke and smoke and smoke and smoke and smoke, most reasonable people will assume there is fire — or that there should be an independent investigation to determine whether there is fire. Arguing that “there's nothing to see here” is simply not a tenable position for Republicans at this point.

[yuiyoshida]

61. I never said "There is nothing to see here" I simply stated the fact that the

Republicans are in charge of mostly everything and that they are corrupt enough to make this go away if they want to.

[meadowlander]

65. Well, there's 150 million of us and we're right

so they don't get to do that unless we give up and let them.

[yuiyoshida]

66. 150 MILLION of us maybe but they are the law makers...

they can damn well do what they please, and they own both the house and senate. We best find away to vote DEMOCRATS back into represent us, because right now there are not enough to do that in any kind of a way.

[meadowlander]

90. No, they can't "damn well do as they please" because they are facing reelection in two years

and they still need to be accountable to their constituents back home.

We've already seen them back down on a number of issues including relaxing the ethics rules, rewriting the Muslim ban, "repeal and replace Obamacare" is now "let's fix the Affordable Care Act without anyone losing coverage".

They are bending to pressure because they are facing thousands of calls and emails and protests outside their offices and angry town hall meetings and unfavorable press coverage.

Sorry, but this defeatist attitude on this thread is not helping with anything. Congress cannot do whatever it likes with no accountability to the American people and just giving up on pressuring them for the next two years is not good enough. If we don't keep the pressure on now, we're not going to win in two years and that's assuming Trump doesn't dismantle the system entirely to ensure that Republicans keep winning.

[DFW]

67. Worse yet

They won't even try to make it go away. They'll let sit out there, in plain sight, rub our noses in it and say, with the nasty tone of the bully, "so what are you gonna do about it?"

[yuiyoshida]

72. Or blame it on Obama

as per normal.

[RandiFan1290]

69. Democrats will drop this quicker than their 'fight' for Garland. nt

[Demsrule86]

71. He lied to Congress.

I think there is a good chance he will resign...at the very least he will have to recuse himself...there may be recordings of his discussions with the Ambassador...he could be charged with perjury.

[yuiyoshida]

74. see post #26

n/t

[madokie]

75. I see this the same as you

Pressure is all we have and I'm not so sure we have enough of it to make a difference. Hopefully we do and can

[yuiyoshida]

76. Just saw this..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028733430

[madokie]

80. When appropriate he says

Well lets not let the door hit your stinking ass on the way out jeff Beauregard (ELF) sessions
He perjured himself, nothing else matters. In a just world that is, not so sure this is a just world anymore is my problem with all this

Peace

[yuiyoshida]

82. Yea ... Friday I am going to buy 6 ounces of legal Medical Marijuana

I hope to be set up before Saturday, cause it will become the best weekend ever!

[madokie]

88. I'm jealous

there is no chance of that for me here in Okie land. Its half assed ok for me to take pain meds for my condition but hell no on the fact that pot is a better control for my type of pain than the opioid's are.
You did notice i said half assed ok. They rake me over the coals every time I need a refill, treat me as a druggie when the fact of the matter is I take one pill every six hours as the prescription says and have been for more than 10 years now. Never two pills, just one. Hell I get a bigger high from the coffee I drink every morning than I do from the pain meds. I personally don't see how anyone can take more of these pills at once because when I've messed up and forgotten I already taken one and take another I'm shortly looking for a hole to crawl into until I come down.
Anyways sorry 'bout my ramblin on there.

My hope is that you have a most Wonderful day today and an awesome weekend this weekend, hell for that matter forever and ever

PS The picture you paint of yourself with your choice of words, sentence structures and message contained is one of a most Beautiful person.

Peace

[yuiyoshida]

91. Ya know for a while

I was taking pills for depression. Huge waste of time cause all they did was make me numb to everything. Who wants to live that way.,..so after a few years I dropped it and told them I didn't want them any longer. They suggested I try another kind, and I said flat out no..Now knowing I will have access to medical Marijuana will be great. The thing is I am not sure whether its better to vape it.. or use a pipe. I don't like rolling joints, I suck at it. A bong was wonderful but they are messy and get nasty very quickly. Nothing worse than smelling or tasting bong water.

So I hope to buy a vaping device and get some really great Kush! I know it will be good for me in the long run. Some edibles would be nice, or even some oil, which I heard is excellent for your health.

But I really look forward to smoking some legal weed soon... I wonder if it will be expensive, and if the quality will be that good. I sure hope so. Long remember my days smoking Hawaii wowie zowie at a party once.. it was a great high. Totally.

[beachbum bob]

77. dont understimate the stench of russia all over conservatives and 2018 is coming

this isn't going away

[yuiyoshida]

78. i hope it won't go away...

By the way I want to see Him Go, this is the guy who wants to take away my legal weed!

[beachbum bob]

87. sessions is an evil opportunistic ass...gotta love karma

[get the red out]

85. I am not completely optimistic

But being the self-serving jackasses that they are, there may be Republicans in the Congress and Senate that don't want to potentially be hurt by all this, and pretend to have a backbone. Especially if they are in a more "purple" state/district, or face the possibility of being primaried.

[yuiyoshida]

86. Yeah that's our only hope...

right there.