Lying weasel lied
U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ testimony that he opposed a proposal for President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign team to meet with Russians has been contradicted by three people who told Reuters they have spoken about the matter to investigators with Special Counsel Robert Mueller or congressional committees.
Sessions testified before Congress in November 2017 that he “pushed back” against the proposal made by former campaign adviser George Papadopoulos at a March 31, 2016 campaign meeting. Then a senator from Alabama, Sessions chaired the meeting as head of the Trump campaign’s foreign policy team.
“Yes, I pushed back,” Sessions told the House Judiciary Committee on Nov. 14, when asked whether he shut down Papadopoulos’ proposed outreach to Russia. (our emphasis)That's the same weasel who fired former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe (knowing it would please Cadet Bone Spurs), ostensibly because McCabe was not truthful in his interactions with investigators about press contacts.
No squealing!
... In the early months of the administration, at the behest of now-President Trump, who was furious over leaks from within the White House, senior White House staff members were asked to, and did, sign nondisclosure agreements vowing not to reveal confidential information and exposing them to damages for any violation. [snip]
... [T]his confidentiality pledge would extend not only after an aide’s White House service but also beyond the Trump presidency. “It’s not meant to be constrained by the four years or eight years he’s president — or the four months or eight months somebody works there. It is meant to survive that.”
This is extraordinary. Every president inveighs against leakers and bemoans the kiss-and-tell books; no president, to my knowledge, has attempted to impose such a pledge. And while White House staffers have various confidentiality obligations — maintaining the secrecy of classified information or attorney-client privilege, for instance — the notion of imposing a side agreement, supposedly enforceable even after the president leaves office, is not only oppressive but constitutionally repugnant.
... Which raises the obvious question: Why is he so consistently frantic to ensure that no one knows what goes on behind closed doors? (our emphasis)(Oooh! Oooh! We know! It's because what's going on is illegal, unethical, morally bankrupt and treasonous.)
The ACLU points out that, once again, Trump doesn't understand or care about the difference between private and public employee status:
Public employees can’t be gagged by private agreements. These so-called NDAs are unconstitutional and unenforceable. https://t.co/IyYqScsESu— ACLU (@ACLU) March 19, 2018
To stop Trump, pragmatism is principle
Partisanship is easy to criticize. But in the short run, removing a supine GOP from power in Congress is the one and only way voters can use the ballot box to hold the president accountable. Whatever their differences, Democrats will not allow Russia’s meddling or the many forms of Trump administration corruption to be buried.
There will be plenty of time before 2020 to argue over the Democratic Party’s direction. These discussions cannot be postponed forever. But between now and the fall, sorting out which candidate best fits a given state or district matters far more than it usually does. For Trump’s opponents, pragmatism is principle — because the stakes are so high. (our emphasis)At this point in our history, anyone on the left who undercuts "best fit" Democratic candidates are only doing Trump's work for him. Period.
Last but not least, Infidel has his comprehensive link round- up with an encyclopedic array of political and non- political topics you'll find interesting, amusing and/ or infuriating. Check it out.
