If ever there was a "much ado about nothing" investigation this entire Russian fiacso cooked up by democrats to slow any work Trump tries to get done is a premier example . I keep hearing the Russians tried to influence the election but have yet to read how they pulled this off and just who was influenced. Hillary was a gosh awful candidate , the voters in America were tired of her arrogance and her baggage and said enough . But the left keeps screaming " it was Russia" . And we thought Ross Perot was paranoid .

 

So GOP holds commanding majority in House, Majority in Senate and the Presidency and it is the Dems who are "slow[ing] any work Trump tries to get done?" How exactly does that work? They control what gets voted on and when it gets voted on so if there are any delays in Trump's agenda, McConnell and Ryan get the blame, not the Dems.

 

Dems do have the right to filibuster in the Senate until the GOP changes that rule for everything, not just SCOTUS nominees. If I was GOP and wanted to make the argument that Dems were slowing things down, I'd put a bill on the floor and make the Dems filibuster it. The reality is, whether it is healthcare or infrastructure or tax reform, there is no unity within the GOP to move forward. Healthcare is a perfect example. Trump twisted arms to get bill passed in House (and then had a party about it at the WH) that will not pass in the Senate. My guess is that both House and Senate will pass healthcare bills so they can tell their constituents that they "repealed Obamacare," but there will be no reconciliation and nothing ever gets sent to Trump to sign in 2017.

As Sessions said, he can't invoke the President's executive privilege but has to to protect his right to do so.

 

That's not how it works. If you are under oath in front of the Senate or in Court, you have to answer unless you have a privilege (attorney client, spousal, executive, etc.) to assert allowing you not to answer. If the privilege has not been asserted, you are in contempt if you don't answer. You don't get to say "Trump might assert it in the future so I won't answer." Same is true for Rogers and Coats last week. (I think they answered many of the questions in closed session.)

 

Given that this is more of a political exercise than a judicial one and the "judge" is not impartial, I suspect they'll all answer eventually, but it will be down the road a bit.

So GOP holds commanding majority in House, Majority in Senate and the Presidency and it is the Dems who are "slow[ing] any work Trump tries to get done?" How exactly does that work? They control what gets voted on and when it gets voted on so if there are any delays in Trump's agenda, McConnell and Ryan get the blame, not the Dems.

 

Dems do have the right to filibuster in the Senate until the GOP changes that rule for everything, not just SCOTUS nominees. If I was GOP and wanted to make the argument that Dems were slowing things down, I'd put a bill on the floor and make the Dems filibuster it. The reality is, whether it is healthcare or infrastructure or tax reform, there is no unity within the GOP to move forward. Healthcare is a perfect example. Trump twisted arms to get bill passed in House (and then had a party about it at the WH) that will not pass in the Senate. My guess is that both House and Senate will pass healthcare bills so they can tell their constituents that they "repealed Obamacare," but there will be no reconciliation and nothing ever gets sent to Trump to sign in 2017.

 

Fair enough , plenty of blame to go around , The majority of the good ole boy GOP crowd despise Trump as much as the Dems . Just going to have to vote them out too. I'm ready for Mccain , Mitch , Sweet Lindsey Graham and the like to be shown the door . Fine by me .

Fair enough , plenty of blame to go around , The majority of the good ole boy GOP crowd despise Trump as much as the Dems . Just going to have to vote them out too. I'm ready for Mccain , Mitch , Sweet Lindsey Graham and the like to be shown the door . Fine by me .

 

#draintheswamp

That's not how it works. If you are under oath in front of the Senate or in Court, you have to answer unless you have a privilege (attorney client, spousal, executive, etc.) to assert allowing you not to answer. If the privilege has not been asserted, you are in contempt if you don't answer. You don't get to say "Trump might assert it in the future so I won't answer." Same is true for Rogers and Coats last week. (I think they answered many of the questions in closed session.)

 

Given that this is more of a political exercise than a judicial one and the "judge" is not impartial, I suspect they'll all answer eventually, but it will be down the road a bit.

 

Tell that to Lois Lerner.

Tell that to Lois Lerner.

 

I don't want to get off topic but that is another case that needs a special prosecutor.

I don't want to get off topic but that is another case that needs a special prosecutor.

 

To me the IRS scandal is the biggest one of my lifetime.

Tell that to Lois Lerner.

 

Apples and rutabagas. Lerner invoked her 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination and the Obama administration had expressly NOT claimed executive privilege. In this case, Sessions did not plead the 5th and while Trump has had press people say he won't claim executive privilege, he has not taken a firm stance either way yet.

 

Further to the comment above that this is political rather than judicial:

Despite her assertion of 5th Amendment protection, the House still held her in contempt for not answering

Obama's Justice Department (via the AG for DC) declined to impound a grand jury and indict on the charge presented to them.

Apples and rutabagas. Lerner invoked her 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination and the Obama administration had expressly NOT claimed executive privilege. In this case, Sessions did not plead the 5th and while Trump has had press people say he won't claim executive privilege, he has not taken a firm stance either way yet.

 

Further to the comment above that this is political rather than judicial:

Despite her assertion of 5th Amendment protection, the House still held her in contempt for not answering

Obama's Justice Department (via the AG for DC) declined to impound a grand jury and indict on the charge presented to them.

 

Sessions answered all questions he thought he could in a open session. The entire thing was a waste of time. Still not one single piece of evidence of collusion. When are democrats going to stop the witch hunt and actually investigate Russia. Dog and pony show is over.

Sessions answered all questions he thought he could in a open session. The entire thing was a waste of time. Still not one single piece of evidence of collusion. When are democrats going to stop the witch hunt and actually investigate Russia. Dog and pony show is over.

 

I am confused. Do the Democrats control a committee despite being the minority part in both houses?

Sessions answered all questions he thought he could in a open session. The entire thing was a waste of time. Still not one single piece of evidence of collusion. When are democrats going to stop the witch hunt and actually investigate Russia. Dog and pony show is over.

 

Didn't Sessions request the hearing?

I am confused. Do the Democrats control a committee despite being the minority part in both houses?

 

Missing my point I don't mind the hearing its the questions coming from Democrats. If they actually care about Russia meddling this ask better questions. Instead they have turned into a sideshow.

Missing my point I don't mind the hearing its the questions coming from Democrats. If they actually care about Russia meddling this ask better questions. Instead they have turned into a sideshow.

 

Since the Comey event I haven't watched. Are the GOP guys asking any better questions?

Since the Comey event I haven't watched. Are the GOP guys asking any better questions?

 

Not really . But I don't see how Sessions would know anything on Russia.

Not really . But I don't see how Sessions would know anything on Russia.

 

Then I am confused.