TexasCHLforum.com

Democrat Michigan Secretary of State Misprints Trump Ticket on Ballots for Troops
Jocelyn Benson, who has endorsed President Trump’s rival, Joe Biden, and spoke at the recent Democratic National Convention (DNC), made the apparent error. The ballot listed Jeremy Cohen as Trump’s running mate. Cohen is running for vice president on the libertarian ticket with Jo Jorgensen.

dale blanker wrote:

dhoobler wrote:

dale blanker wrote: Please be specific so I might learn and do better. The items that I mentioned are not my invention; they are in the news because of leaks. The Dems may be overreacting but it sure would be nice if the President was pro-active in resolving the "Russian Connection".

Here is a detail that I have already posted once, but apparently you were not listening. I will try again.

During questioning by Al Franken regarding a fake dossier, Franken asked Sessions if anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government. Sessions said that he had been called a surrogate, but he had not communicated with the Russians. This statement has been taken out of context to smear him because Franken was referring to the campaign’s communication with the Russians. Sessions had contact with a Russian ambassador twice, but it was when he was working in his capacity as a senator, not with the campaign. He is a member of the Armed Services Committee, so this is not unusual. His answer was truthful in the context of the question.

http://beltwaytimes.com/sessions-comments-context/

You are right about one thing. The dems are overreacting.

BTW, what exactly is there for the president to resolve about the "Russian Connection"? In our system of jurisprudence, the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accusee. Trump is the accusee. The real question is not what Trump will do, but rather, when will the democrats come up with real evidence of wrongdoiing and not some contrived accusation based on an out of context quote.

Yes, I'm aware of Sessions' answer being "in context" but, given all the focus on Russian influence to the election, one could reasonably expect that ALL Russian meetings should have been noted. Also, he was the only member of the Armed Services Committee to meet with the Russian... being a member of the Foreign Relations Committee seems more applicable.

Actually, he should have just answered the question that was asked and would have avoided concern about the accuracy of the answer he gave. And then his staff had to advise him about whether or not to recuse himself... really?

I think the President could encourage the assignment of a special prosecutor, encourage all staff (and family) to fully divulge any Russian communications, and release his tax returns. I expect Russian collusion is non-existent so why not take the lead in getting it cleared?

In our system of jurisprudence, the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accusee. Trump is the accusee. The real question is not what Trump will do, but rather, when will the democrats come up with real evidence of wrongdoiing and not some contrived accusation based on an out of context quote.

...
This is the Holy Grail — or smoking gun, to switch clichés — of some Democrats’ imaginings. Trump has been criticized for mocking concerns about Russian interference in last year’s election as an attempt by Democrats to delegitimize his presidency. But let’s face it. If it were established that his campaign colluded with efforts by Russian intelligence to hack into Democratic email accounts and feed the contents to WikiLeaks for dissemination, that would delegitimize his victory big-league — and it might implicate campaign aides who were involved in criminal conduct. Watergate comparisons would be in order.

Of course, as the New York Times conceded in its most recent story, such collusion “has not been confirmed.”
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion- ... story.html

dale blanker wrote: Please be specific so I might learn and do better. The items that I mentioned are not my invention; they are in the news because of leaks. The Dems may be overreacting but it sure would be nice if the President was pro-active in resolving the "Russian Connection".

During questioning by Al Franken regarding a fake dossier, Franken asked Sessions if anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government. Sessions said that he had been called a surrogate, but he had not communicated with the Russians. This statement has been taken out of context to smear him because Franken was referring to the campaign’s communication with the Russians. Sessions had contact with a Russian ambassador twice, but it was when he was working in his capacity as a senator, not with the campaign. He is a member of the Armed Services Committee, so this is not unusual. His answer was truthful in the context of the question.

http://beltwaytimes.com/sessions-comments-context/

dale blanker wrote: Gee I said that was 2 weeks ago and I thought I was kind of kidding... but after Flynn, now there's Sessions with a memory problem, Danafort with an answering problem, Ross with a bank association problem, Kushner with a meeting problem... drip, drip, drip...it looks like maybe we'll be seeing a tax return after all.
And what happened to the revised executive order on immigration/refugees?

During questioning by Al Franken regarding a fake dossier, Franken asked Sessions if anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government. Sessions said that he had been called a surrogate, but he had not communicated with the Russians. This statement has been taken out of context to smear him because Franken was referring to the campaign’s communication with the Russians. Sessions had contact with a Russian ambassador twice, but it was when he was working in his capacity as a senator, not with the campaign. He is a member of the Armed Services Committee, so this is not unusual. His answer was truthful in the context of the question.