So... Did the new AG lie to Congress?

I don't even remember that.

Did it happen in the first two months of his administration?

Simply my opinion Anna that President Obama did enjoy a period of considerable good will when he first took office despite being vehemently opposed by the opposition party which was policy based and not personal.

In terms of if laws were broken? Sure. Do I think that it would change a lot of minds? Nope, but you know what, if the special prosecutor conducts a fair and impartial investigation, then I'm all for it, no matter what they might find.

And people bitched about Michelle Obama wearing an outfit without sleeves. Idiocy knows no party.

In case we get distracted and forget the key question in this situation, here's a website dedicated to it:

http://www.hassessionsresignedyet.com

And when was that? Not denying it. Just don't remember it.

But prior stupidity in no way excuses current stupidity.

And Obama critics bitched and moaned about everything too. So what? This is way more serious.

Here's a piece from 2012 about it. There's more, but I'm not in the mood to Google around for it. I also don't care that Melania posed nude. I don't find her (or Michelle Obama) particularly attractive, but I'm not going to attack those who do, or whatever.

The point is that a certain percentage of the population will find people of opposing political views to be stupid, regardless of the reason. I can remember a thread on another board I used to frequent where a poster bitched about one of the Bush daughters sticking her tongue out at the press. Most people, thankfully, had sense enough to call him out on the asshat that he was, regardless of their political affiliation. I don't care that Conway had her feet on the couch and will tell anyone who's upset by this that they need to get over themselves, regardless of their politics. I also recognize that I don't necessarily mesh with other folks on many matters. That is neither here nor there, in this instance.

I can see it now.

"Trump shot the Japanese ambassador in the face and then peed on his wife."
"Well, that's OK because Obama put his feet on the desk."
"Those aren't remotely the same thing!"
"Aha, but did Trump do those things on a Tuesday afternoon? Obama did his thing on a Tuesday afternoon, so it's not the same!"

Of that time your team was caught doing something illegal, so you tried bringing up stuff from years ago as a distraction?

Yes.

No. He clearly said he "didn't not" talk to the Russians. That's a double negative.

This'd be funny except for the fact I wasn't posting here between 2011 and 2015.

Um, policies I strongly favor are in ascendance, bub, ought to check your facts and the definition of irrelevant. : D

While over here, in RL, the democrat leadership demand resignation after resignation or just try to prevent anything from getting done, eschewing even the most basic policy discussion. Personally I love the dumbocrat strategy, and I'm glad the wf foreign peanut gallery brigade are on board too; birds of a feather and all that.

No, I'm saying you are irrelevant. Whether you favour policies that are currently popular or not has no bearing on that. Ludacris is possibly in favour of hamburgers, which are very popular, but he's still an irrelevant twat.

I would bang the crap out of Michelle Obama. I bet she's a tiger in bed. But off topic...

Sessions lied under oath. As an AG, he has to go. I encourage the Dems to keep the pounding on this issue as much as the Pubs did about the emails and Benghazi. I feed off the chaos and discord!

Sooo, despite Sessions claiming he had his senatorial hat on the day he totally spoke to the Russians, rather than his shitty little red Trump cap, turns out he claimed expenses for the trip on the Trump campaign's account...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/fbi-inve...s-us-terror-related-suspicions-172750752.html

Sessions claims the FBI is currently investigating 300 refugees in the US for terrorism related offenses.

So basically any refugee who is actually a terrorist will now either go dark or cease and desist whatever it is they are doing because they know they are being watched, thanks to Sessions.

Well he doesnt tell the truth. What does the FBI say? That I would believe.

He also says there are 1000 nonrefugee persons under investigation for Islamic terrorism related offenses.

Tuttle has a longstanding tradition of irrelevance. He would have created a slogan to honor that tradition but, well, you know.

What is the defenition of is is?

You omitted this bit and it's pretty fucking obvious why:

The claim was that it is 300 refugees in the US.

John was right, you really are losing the ability to determine what words mean: OBVIOUSLY the refugees are in the US now, the article says Sessions didn't detail where they CAME FROM. So these could be refugees from countries other than those included in Trump's ban.

Already acknowledged that thus why I specifically restated what he said. Read more varefully, man, or stop trying to correct people when you fail to listen to what they said.

Look, idiot, YOU may need points re-iterated for you, but I don't, so there was no reason to assume I didn't know Sessions had only mentioned 300 refugees in the US. My point was that both he and you failed to mention where they came from, and that I suspect you both have ulterior motives for failing to provide that (in his case) or not mentioning his failure (in your case).

Now fuck off until you can add something to the discussion beyond a fucking precis.

My brain damaged friend, the very fact that 300 terrorists got in via the refugee system shows how broken it is and how a pause is needed to reevaluate the process.

Yes, I know you are angry and irrational, you do not want this to happen, but millions do what this pause and reevaluation including the people who actually legally got elected to make these decisions. So do piss off and have your temper tantrums some where else or at least aim them at someone else.