Pro tip: When you are parsing words in a controversy, you are usually not winning
-
As to a question that asked about campaign talks. Rule 1: you don't ignore the question when assessing accuracy of the answer.
.@Barnes_Law Of course not. But his answer was unequivocal about no contact with the Russians. Hence, when you're parsing you're losing.
-
-
I'm old enough to remember when the right emphasized textualism.
-
I'm old enough to remember when the left were not McCarthyite Russia-phobes.
-
hahahahahaha good luck with that angle, Robert.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I don't understand point about ignoring question. He wasn't asked about own contacts, he volunteered the lie!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Yes, unequivocal that HE had NO comms with Russians. Said to Franken to support arg that no investigation needed
-
The liberals who said Hillary and Clapper were innocent now want to parse a perjury claim, by removing context?
-
Parse a perjury claim? Remove context? Hillary? Clapper? What? The AG said "I didn't have comms with Russians"
-
Wrong: he said as campaign surrogate, he didn't. In writing, he said no campaign talks. All knew his Senate role.
-
Seems there should at least be a thorough investigation of what exactly Sessions discussed with the Russian ambassador, no?
-
As soon as we have that investigation into Clinton Foundation and what Obama knew about Clapper's lies.
-
ok, got it, whether the AG committed perjury depends on what exactly he discussed w/ Russians but no investigation.
-
ok, got it, liberals who thought Hillary was innocent want to invent a new standard of law to apply to Trump AG
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
As to the campaign, since that was the entire context of the question. When you're hiding or making up context, you're losing.
-
If discussion touched on Dem. hacking or leaks that is pertinent. Even if Trump campaign itself not discussed.
-
Franken could have asked; Franken chose not to. Franken didn't ask many questions he didn't want answers he didn't like.
-
No reason for Franken to run list of Qs covering all issues that may have been discussed if there was no meeting.
-
Franken likely knew of at least 1 meeting with ambassador. Public meeting in public place with other senators/ambassadors
-
If Franken had info he didn't follow up then or later. JS could have mentioned Heritage meeting as public, innocuous
-
Technically, he isn't supposed to talk about items not asked of him. Those hearings go long enough already.
-
Franken's Q didn't have qualifier about whether he discussed campaign. Should have said yes. It was a friendly crowd.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.