Slandering Sessions

Suppose your team just qualified for the Stanley Cup Playoffs, and your wife asks whether you previously spoke with your cousin Dave about buying a pair of postseason tickets. She knows you've always wanted to go to playoff games in person, and she knows Dave has gone to some in other seasons.

Because you've never spoken about it with Dave, you respond by saying: "I've been called a zealous fan, but playoff tickets are insanely expensive and I don't know how people afford them. I haven't talked to Dave."

Obviously you do not mean that you and Dave have never spoken -- you only mean that you haven't talked about getting tickets to the upcoming playoffs.

If it was "later learned" that you and Dave had met for Happy Hour two weeks prior, would that mean you lied to your wife and were being deceptive when you answered "I haven't talked to Dave" -- in response to her asking if you and he had discussed buying playoff tickets? Of course not. Or if you don't mind me going sailor, of course the fuck not. But that is essentially what we are being asked to believe about Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

During Sessions's confirmation hearing on January 10th, Senator Al Franken asked him the following, verbatim: "CNN just published a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president-elect last week, that included information that 'Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump.' These documents also allegedly say 'there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign by Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.' Again, I'm telling you this as it's coming out, so you know. But if it's true, it's obviously extremely serious, and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?"

Those allegations Fraken cited are now known to be false, by the way, but I digress. Sessions responded to the rambling and not very precise question by saying, verbatim: "Senator Franken, I'm not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I didn't have, did not have communications with the Russians, and I'm unable to comment on it."

Remember that Sessions never worked for the campaign and was not affiliated with it. It's obvious that when he answered Franken's question, he did so in the context in which it was asked; i.e., it's obvious that he meant he never colluded with Russian officials for the Trump campaign or spoke with them concerning the election. It's also clear (especially if you listen to the tape) that he took exception to having ever been referred to as a Trump surrogate. Even people whose brains consist of nothing more than a rusted wheel being slowly spun by a paraplegic hamster can tell these things; they can also tell that Sessions wasn't even asked if he had election-related contact with the Russians, and that he simply offered up that tidbit as part of his reply to Franken's overall query, such as it was.

Still, just in case anyone listening had even less than a slowly-spun, rusted hamster wheel in his brain, Senator Patrick "Leaky" Leahy went ahead and asked the clarifying follow-up: "Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after Election Day?" (emphasis mine)

In response to Leahy's precise, non-rambling question, Sessions said: "No."

Everyone in the room (remember, they were all senators) knew what Sessions meant with his original "did not have communications with the Russians" remark. Prior to being tabbed for the AG post in November, he was one of the highest profile members of the U.S. Senate and in fact a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, which made communicating with "the Russians" (and many other foreign dignitaries) part of his job. It would have been strange if he hadn't communicated with them.

If any Democrats in the room had believed that Sessions meant he never dealt with any Russian dignitaries, they would have pounced because they would have known it to be false, and 97.9 percent of them (47 of the 48) were trying to keep him from getting confirmed. Instead, they remained silent because they knew there was nothing to see there. After listening to Leahy's follow-up, even non-partisan kindergarteners would have known there was nothing to see there.

But then the left wing press mainstream media experienced a bit of panic after Donald Trump's Tuesday speech proved to be a home run with the public. Eager to publish anything that might put a damper on his administration's momentum, they went back to their bogus "Russia hacked the election" narrative and tried to paint Attorney General Sessions as having "lied" about his "communications with the Russians." They did this by "reporting" that Sessions twice met Ambassador Sergei Kislyak last year. The Washington Post was first out of the gate with that story (non-story, actually) and then every other gear in the Democrat Media Complex began turning in concert.

Writing about perjury -- which is a felony under federal law -- Vox claimed "there is good reason to believe that Sessions committed it."

Chuck Schumer, the Democrats' official leader in the Senate, said that Sessions should resign. (No word yet on whether Schumer thinks that he himself should resign for having palled around with Valdimir Putin.)

Senator Claire McCaskill (who, citizens of Missouri, is up for re-election in 20 months!) had the temerity to write the following on Twitter: I've been on the Armed Services Com for 10 years. No call or meeting w/Russian ambassador. Ever. Ambassadors call Foreign Relations Com... But unfortunately for her, she was soon reminded that she had written the following on Twitter in 2013: Off to meeting w/Russian ambassador. Upset about the arbitrary/cruel decision to end all U.S. adoptions, even those in process. She was also reminded that she tweeted the following in 2015: Today calls with British, Russian, and German ambassadors re:Iran deal.

Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats' House Leader, also said she had never met the afore-mentoned Russian Ambassador Kislyak... only to have a photo surface of them dining together (along with others) at a meeting in 2010.

Then there is this: When Trump delivered his speech on Tuesday, Ambassador Kislyak attended and sat with the Democrats!

Oops, oops, and oops again. If there is any fire to go along with the smoke, it is burning on the Democrat side of the aisle, not the Republican side. But the Democrat Media Complex thinks so little of the intelligence of American citizens that it shovels this shit at the public because it is confident the public wil eat it.

Jeff Sessions is a scrupulous man. Although he knows his name has been unfairly sullied, rather than fight back with a verbal grenade launcher, he announced that if the government ever launches an investigation of Russia involving itself in any way in the 2016 election, he will recuse himself in order to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.

That was the right thing to do, and it is a marked difference from what Obama appointees did when their own were under suspicion. Sessions making that statement was an example of public-spirited ethics and should have been treated as such, but because he is a Republican and the Democrat Media Complex is, well, the Democrat Media Complex, it is being depicted as a kind of confession.

Never mind that there is not even an investigation going on right now. Never mind that the lack of an investigation means Sessions didn't actually recuse himself from anything, because there is nothing going on to be recused from. Never mind that all he did was say he will recuse himself should something eventually be investigated that involves alleged links between Russia representatives and the administration for which he works.

Never mind all of that, because all the MSM cared about was being able to use the words "Sessions" and "recused" in the same sentence -- and do that, they did. The word "recuse" seems to imply that there was some kind of wrongdoing. Making that implication was all the Democrat Media Complex cared about, and because they got to use the word "recuse," they got their way even though they didn't deserve to.

The New York Times headline read "Jeff Sessions Recuses Himself From Russia Inquiry." It would have been nice if it had mentioned that there is no Russia inquiry, but of course, niceness was not the reason for their reporting.

The Los Angeles Times editorial page headline read "Jeff Sessions recuses himself from any investigation into Trump's Russia ties. Better late than never." Yes, an editorial is not a report, but it would have been nice to not use the word "late" when there is not even an inquiry happening in the first place. Plus, it would have been nice to acknowledge that there are no known ties between Trump and Russia. But of course, niceness was not the reason for their editorializing.

As far as the Democrat Media Complex is concerned, the integrity of Jeff Sessions means squat. As far as they are concerned, he is nothing but a conservative Southerner whose scalp needed to be hacked off for their supposedly greater leftist good, so they went out and scalped him by slandering him.

And make no mistake: If you disagree with the Left, leftists (notice I didn't say liberals) will not hesitate to scalp you too, and it won't bother their conscience one bit to falsely damage your reputation and cause turmoil in your life. They will believe you deserve it.

As far as leftists are concerned, life is war, and those who aren't on their side must be crushed if they don't convert. The way they machine gunned a good man's name tells you all you need to know.