• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump's people just refusing to answer questions!

I

independentusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
14,607
Reaction score
9,303
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It seems that the way Sessions got out from answering some questions was to just refuse to answer. When asked for a legal reason he gave none. This is the second Trump person who has used this technique. I guess they realize that the committees are controlled by the GOP who will never hold them in contempt for refusing to answer, so why not just refuse. The committees could hold them in contempt of Congress which could bring them a fine and up to a year in jail. So do you think that they should be required to answer and if they don't should the GOP agree to hold them in contempt?
 
independentusa said:
It seems that the way Sessions got out from answering some questions was to just refuse to answer. When asked for a legal reason he gave none. This is the second Trump person who has used this technique. I guess they realize that the committees are controlled by the GOP who will never hold them in contempt for refusing to answer, so why not just refuse. The committees could hold them in contempt of Congress which could bring them a fine and up to a year in jail. So do you think that they should be required to answer and if they don't should the GOP agree to hold them in contempt?
Click to expand...

The GOP will not hold them in contempt (At this time) and the is no different that any democrat not being held in contempt when democrats are in control. Post testimony interviews has us believe the early plan going forward is to put pressure on Trump to either make the decision of utilizing executive privilege or exploring further options up to and including contempt if cooperation does not improve (under the pretense that the president continues to NOT use the executive privilege)
 
volsrock said:
How many times did Lerner take the 5th?

Hillary Clinton used variations of 'I don't recall' 21 out of 25 times when answering questions about private email server in court filing

Hillary Clinton said 'I don't recall' 21 times out of 25 times regarding e-mail | Daily Mail Online
Click to expand...

Only minor relevance bring up those two. They were extremely frustrating, but one of the ways Sessions was avoiding giving answers was to use an excuse that had no legal backing. Lerner and Hillary obnoxiously abused excuses, unfortunately in the quantity they used those excuses their excuses had legal backing.
 
independentusa said:
It seems that the way Sessions got out from answering some questions was to just refuse to answer. When asked for a legal reason he gave none. This is the second Trump person who has used this technique. I guess they realize that the committees are controlled by the GOP who will never hold them in contempt for refusing to answer, so why not just refuse. The committees could hold them in contempt of Congress which could bring them a fine and up to a year in jail. So do you think that they should be required to answer and if they don't should the GOP agree to hold them in contempt?
Click to expand...


Well when you have something to hide, why would you answer?
 
Clinton was harassed over minutiae of events which took place years before. Sessions can't remember major events from weeks ago.
 
THis had nothing to do with I don't recall, Sessions also used that. Sessions just refused to answer saying that Trump might some time in the future use executive privilege. that of course isn't a legal reason for you either have to use executive privilege or not at the time the question is asked.
 
Link to when a Dem just refused to answer and the Dems didn't hold them in contempt please.
 
YOu can claim the 5th. claim executive privilege or answer. those are supposed to be the choices.
 
independentusa said:
It seems that the way Sessions got out from answering some questions was to just refuse to answer. When asked for a legal reason he gave none. This is the second Trump person who has used this technique. I guess they realize that the committees are controlled by the GOP who will never hold them in contempt for refusing to answer, so why not just refuse. The committees could hold them in contempt of Congress which could bring them a fine and up to a year in jail. So do you think that they should be required to answer and if they don't should the GOP agree to hold them in contempt?
Click to expand...

At least Sessions had a good reason...unlike Comey who just says, "it's sensitive"...and the committee buys it.
 
Mycroft said:
At least Sessions had a good reason...unlike Comey who just says, "it's sensitive"...and the committee buys it.
Click to expand...

Sessions didn't have a good reason and, as Senator King aptly exposed, it was a tactic that he applied selectively. He didn't have a good reason - which was simply "I don't want to" - for not answering questions about his own thoughts either.
 
independentusa said:
It seems that the way Sessions got out from answering some questions was to just refuse to answer. When asked for a legal reason he gave none. This is the second Trump person who has used this technique. I guess they realize that the committees are controlled by the GOP who will never hold them in contempt for refusing to answer, so why not just refuse. The committees could hold them in contempt of Congress which could bring them a fine and up to a year in jail. So do you think that they should be required to answer and if they don't should the GOP agree to hold them in contempt?
Click to expand...
I think they should be held just as acciuntable as Lois Lerner was

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Tigerace117 said:
For people who claim to hate Clinton so much, you seem to spend an awful lot of time emulating her.
Click to expand...
Thats some bitter medicine the left should get use to swallowing

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
independentusa said:
THis had nothing to do with I don't recall, Sessions also used that. Sessions just refused to answer saying that Trump might some time in the future use executive privilege. that of course isn't a legal reason for you either have to use executive privilege or not at the time the question is asked.
Click to expand...
Its so frustrating when they obfuscate, don't you think?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
independentusa said:
Link to when a Dem just refused to answer and the Dems didn't hold them in contempt please.
Click to expand...
Trick question. Every sane person kmows how forthright people on The left are

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
ANy proof of what you say about the left? Link showing how the left doesn't tell the truth?
 
independentusa said:
ANy proof of what you say about the left? Link showing how the left doesn't tell the truth?
Click to expand...

Obama: 'If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan'
 
volsrock said:
Click to expand...


It is always nice to watch the master. Clearly Trump could never compete with Slick Willie when it comes to lying. Truly one of the all time greatest liars to ever hold office.
 
independentusa said:
It seems that the way Sessions got out from answering some questions was to just refuse to answer. When asked for a legal reason he gave none. This is the second Trump person who has used this technique. I guess they realize that the committees are controlled by the GOP who will never hold them in contempt for refusing to answer, so why not just refuse. The committees could hold them in contempt of Congress which could bring them a fine and up to a year in jail. So do you think that they should be required to answer and if they don't should the GOP agree to hold them in contempt?
Click to expand...

It is a common sense reason, not a legal one. If the president can't have confidential conversations with his cabinet, he simply can't function. It is inappropriate to ask a subordinate what the president said in a private conversation, and for good reason. I realize neither you nor the senate democrats want him to function but the reason not to answer is valid and critical.

Personally I love obstruction and gridlock because I want the federal government to do less, not more. But I hate the politics of personal destruction and what is going on now is definitely that. I'd rather the democrats just obstruct and lay off the personal war on Trump. Actually I think it may hurt them more than it will hurt Trump who isn't a politician and won't do politics again.
 
trouble13 said:
Thats some bitter medicine the left should get use to swallowing

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Oh it's not really bitter. I just find it incredibly amusing, given how much y'all hate her, that you would spend so much time acting exactly like her.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom