WATCH LIVE: Sessions testifies about Russia meetings in Senate hearing

[Absentglare]

Apparently, you didn't read my post. As a society we have changed radically and the social pressure is for women to NOT be a stay at home mom.

We have changed. What makes you so sure you have such a firm grasp on the deep, inner workings of the minds of all 325 million Americans? Lol!!!!! I'm sure every social scientist in the world would love to hear your findings!!

Lol, while some attacks on the politicians you mentioned are clearly sexist the vast majority are from mistakes brought on themselves or from their views.

How would you know? A lot of Hillary Clinton's positions were actually projected in the media with President Trump's voice. He dominated coverage and exerted far more control over the narrative.

Did you ever hear that Hillary Clinton was "hungry for power"? See, a woman who "wants power" is a bigger threat than a man who "wants power". That kind of criticism worked more effectively against her partially because she's female.

In 1937, just 33 percent of Americans said they would vote for a female presidential candidate, according to Gallup's first poll on the subject. By 2015, that number had climbed to 92 percent. But giving a non-sexist answer to a pollster is easy enough; the country has almost aced that test. Actually voting for a female presidential candidate has proven to be a much bigger challenge.

Still, social science evidence, primary exit polls and my interviews with researchers and dozens of voters indicate that white men’s attitudes toward Clinton are driven by a complex mix of conscious and subconscious sexism. “The gender issue, people say it shouldn’t matter anymore,” said Nancy Mills, a member of the Democratic National Committee and longtime powerbroker in Pennsylvania politics. “But it always matters because it exists. You can’t ignore it and make it go away.”

The hidden sexism that could sway the election | PBS NewsHour

See, you seem to think that since we chose "gender equality" at the top level, that all the other levels of our brains are on the same page. They're not, the brain is reflexive and compartmentalized. We can only keep prejudice at bay with continued, conscious self-awareness. You, on the other hand, seem to be choosing to be blind to the issue.

 

[Nap]

We have changed. What makes you so sure you have such a firm grasp on the deep, inner workings of the minds of all 325 million Americans? Lol!!!!! I'm sure every social scientist in the world would love to hear your findings!!



How would you know? A lot of Hillary Clinton's positions were actually projected in the media with President Trump's voice. He dominated coverage and exerted far more control over the narrative.

Did you ever hear that Hillary Clinton was "hungry for power"? See, a woman who "wants power" is a bigger threat than a man who "wants power". That kind of criticism worked more effectively against her partially because she's female.



The hidden sexism that could sway the election | PBS NewsHour

See, you seem to think that since we chose "gender equality" at the top level, that all the other levels of our brains are on the same page. They're not, the brain is reflexive and compartmentalized. We can only keep prejudice at bay with continued, conscious self-awareness. You, on the other hand, seem to be choosing to be blind to the issue.

It is called an observation, any rational person can simply look around and see that the career woman has become the ideal within society.

So because Trump is more charismatic that is sexist? As far as "Hungry for power", no I haven't heard that one. The typical criticisms of her was that she was a liar, a crook, or a continuation of Obama's policies. None of those have anything to do with her being a woman and everything to do with her own actions and policies. I have heard some comment that they couldn't stand her voice which some could spin into a sexist comment.

Sociologists are almost exclusively Left wingers, Does it really shock you that they would assume sexism played a part in the election?

In regards to sexism and women under represented in Congress, there is no issue to be blind to.

FACT #1 - Women are the majority
FACT # 2 - Women vote at a higher rate then men
FACT #3 - There is nothing restricting a woman from Running.

You could even argue that sexism benefits them more than hurts. When competing in primaries for Democrat positions they will likely have a slight advantage. Take Hillary and Bernie for example, there were less on the Left that would have voted against her simply because of her gender. However, it is fair to say she likely had support purely on the basis of her gender. They even campaigned on it "I'm with her" and the glass ceiling etc

 

[Cardinal]

Really. Now you are making a claim. Post the transcript and prove your claim. I already posted the video, so I guess you will believe the transcript over your own eyes and ears.

Um...it just was posted.

 

[Jack Hays]

What legal basis is there for Sessions to refuse to answer questions that don't involve classified information or an invocation of executive privilege? The answer to that question is that no such legal basis exists and no such policy to respond to Congressional inquiries in that manner exists...which took Sessions forever to admit after falsely asserting otherwise.

Sorry, but DoJ and all other Departments have similar policies to safeguard discussions.

 

[Jack Hays]

Do you know that with absolute surety?

I have rarely seen such nastiness.

 

[danarhea]

I asked for the transcript supporting your claim, not your abbreviated memory of the incident.

I've got a memory of this that tells me every pothead that Sessions wants to throw in prison has a better memory than he does. LOL.

 

[Threegoofs]

Sorry, but DoJ and all other Departments have similar policies to safeguard discussions.

It's funny- when you read the memoirs of people who worked in the executive branch (like Robert Gates), he constantly describes conversations with the President, which, being unclassified, he doesn't have to clear.

But when you testify in a matter important to the nation? Naaah.

 

[Napoleon]

Sorry, but DoJ and all other Departments have similar policies to safeguard discussions.

There is no such policy.

 

[Rogue Valley]

There is no such policy.

Indeed. Sessions could not name that confidentiality policy and he could not describe where in the DoJ it is located. Nothing, nada, zilch.

Very odd because Sessions testified that he and his staff discussed probable Senate questions beforehand.

Anyone who has ever watched Judge Judy knows that you must provide everything required when testifying under oath.

 

[Jack Hays]

It's funny- when you read the memoirs of people who worked in the executive branch (like Robert Gates), he constantly describes conversations with the President, which, being unclassified, he doesn't have to clear.

But when you testify in a matter important to the nation? Naaah.

Memoirs are written long after the fact and most of those recounted conversations are in fact cleared.

 

[Jack Hays]

There is no such policy.

Ah, but there is.

Jeff Sessions cites 'longstanding policy' to deflect senators' questions in Russia hearing | PolitiFact

 

[Threegoofs]

Ah, but there is.

Jeff Sessions cites 'longstanding policy' to deflect senators' questions in Russia hearing | PolitiFact

You really should read your own references sometime.

"However, it’s important to consider that many of the questions Sessions declined to answer were ones that he could have predicted, given the topic of the hearing, noted Duke University law professor Lisa Kern Griffin, an expert in dishonesty and the law. Sessions deflected questions about details of his conversations with Trump about the Russia investigation or the firing of FBI director James Comey.

So Sessions could have asked Trump in advance of the hearing whether an executive privilege invocation would be appropriate.

"Basically (Sessions) is trying to gain the benefits of claiming executive privilege without its political or legal consequences," said Heidi Kitrosser, an expert in government transparency and professor at the University of Minnesota."

 

[RAMOSS]

You really should read your own references sometime.

"However, it’s important to consider that many of the questions Sessions declined to answer were ones that he could have predicted, given the topic of the hearing, noted Duke University law professor Lisa Kern Griffin, an expert in dishonesty and the law. Sessions deflected questions about details of his conversations with Trump about the Russia investigation or the firing of FBI director James Comey.

So Sessions could have asked Trump in advance of the hearing whether an executive privilege invocation would be appropriate.

"Basically (Sessions) is trying to gain the benefits of claiming executive privilege without its political or legal consequences," said Heidi Kitrosser, an expert in government transparency and professor at the University of Minnesota."

Hum. Apparently, an american lobbyist for russian interests has said Sessions has lied under oath, because according to Sessions, he didn't have any contact with russian lobbyists during the 2016 campaign.. and this guy attended two dinners given by Sessions..

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ests-jeff-sessions-testimony?CMP=share_btn_tw

 

[jmotivator]

Hum. Apparently, an american lobbyist for russian interests has said Sessions has lied under oath, because according to Sessions, he didn't have any contact with russian lobbyists during the 2016 campaign.. and this guy attended two dinners given by Sessions..

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ests-jeff-sessions-testimony?CMP=share_btn_tw

You are lying or didn't read that article. Sessions stated he was not aware of any meetings with Russian representatives and the source in that article said he doesn't know if Sessions was aware of the lobbyists current work when he attended a dinner with many other former foreign policy officials.

 

[Parrish]

What does anyone expect from Gen, Stonewall Sessions? Nothin'.

 

[Jack Hays]

You really should read your own references sometime.

"However, it’s important to consider that many of the questions Sessions declined to answer were ones that he could have predicted, given the topic of the hearing, noted Duke University law professor Lisa Kern Griffin, an expert in dishonesty and the law. Sessions deflected questions about details of his conversations with Trump about the Russia investigation or the firing of FBI director James Comey.

So Sessions could have asked Trump in advance of the hearing whether an executive privilege invocation would be appropriate.

"Basically (Sessions) is trying to gain the benefits of claiming executive privilege without its political or legal consequences," said Heidi Kitrosser, an expert in government transparency and professor at the University of Minnesota."

I did not claim Sessions was thoughtful, only that the policy he cited is real. That was confirmed.

 

[Paperview]

LOL



"Authoritarians don’t have to be good liars—in fact, being bad at lying may be an advantage, since making one’s followers pretend to believe an obvious falsehood serves as both a show of strength and an easy loyalty test.

Maybe that’s why Jeff Sessions did such a terrible job of lying at his Senate testimony, or maybe it’s just a skill he’s never had to cultivate. But whatever Sessions’ reasons, as Conan O’Brien noticed on Tuesday night, the embattled attorney general has a nervous habit that reliably indicates when he’s stretching the truth.

It’s subtle, but it’s there, and once O’Brien points it out, it’s impossible to ignore. "

 

[Erod]

Can't wait for Sessions to re-open the Clinton/Podesta investigations.

That's the reason they're pushing this Russian nonsense so hard. Trying to get rid of Trump before the real investigation ensues.

 

[Rogue Valley]

I did not claim Sessions was thoughtful, only that the policy he cited is real. That was confirmed.

Sessions cannot invoke Executive Privilege. Trump can't claim Executive Privilege here either because he has already commented publicly about his conversations with [fired] FBI Director Comey.

 

[Jack Hays]

Sessions cannot invoke Executive Privilege. Trump can't claim Executive Privilege here either because he has already commented publicly about his conversations with [fired] FBI Director Comey.

He did not invoke Executive Privilege. Please see the link.