I want to know what this fucking policy is which these assholes keep using as a defense to avoid answering questions...

I want to know what this fucking policy is which these assholes keep using as a defense to avoid answering questions under oath, even in private.

When Kamala Harris kept trying to make Sessions answer the question of why he didn't look at the actual statute he's using as his defense before coming, especially when this same issue arose LAST time as well, stupid old John McCrazy INTERRUPTED HER to allow Sessions to keep rambling and avoid answering the question.

What are they trying to hide by this? Why aren't they threatening to hold these people in contempt unless they either provide the statute or answer the questions?

Other urls found in this thread:

justice.gov/olc/opinion/congressional-requests-confidential-executive-branch-information
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Colored people and especially colored women do not belong in government... she should be ignored and marginalized to the further extent possible

I loath people who promote this idiocy.

This is Jeff sessions America, get used to it or GTFO!

So pretend a white male asked the question, which I do believe also happened, but they didn't get interrupted.

Why won't they provide the statute, and why didn't he bother to bring it in the folder full of shit he brought with him, when he knew he would use it as a defense multiple times?

I watched Kamala Harris today live during the hearing

She may be the biggest cunt in the senate

Also who the fuck does Ron Wyden think he is?


And Tom Cotton is awesome.

He thought he was a senator investigating a man who keeps refusing to answer questions. And he would be correct.

its not a subpoena so hes under no obligation to give them all the answers

Once he shows up and sits at the table he is in fact required to answer their questions. Volunteering to be there rather than getting a subpoena doesn't change that.

>wat is the fifth
america is great

He never used his constitutional right, he used a fake DOJ statute that nobody has proven exists.

He used it you just don't see it that way

You have to audibly invoke it.

Just like he can't keep saying that he has to run something by the president first so that he can decide if he wants to allow him to say it. If the president didn't say so ahead of time then he's required to answer.

required by who or what?

He swore an oath to
>tell the truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth.

He had no legal standing for refusing to answer the questions asked by the committee members.

Jesus

That's apparently how you see it. The reality is you can actually keep your fucking mouth shut in this country.

The LAW.

The Congress has a right and responsibility of oversight.

We are a nation of laws, correct? These fuckers ran on LAW and ORDER.

Yeah by feigning forgetfulness, sure. Sessions nailed it.

Not a grand jury. You retard read the fucking laws. The law also says you can keep your mouth shut.
>i forget
its actually not that bad. its just not what you wanted

hahahahaah hey butt hurt boy

Why would I be butthurt about Sessions tanking himself?

He didn't invoke the 5th.

And, you should read the Constitution, dickless.

These illiterate retards never even heard of the Star Chamber, so what the fuck do they know about the 5th Amendment?

"B-but they must be COMPELLED TO CONFESS! JAIL THEM UNTIL THEY DO!"

He didn't need to invoke it he was apparently giving answers just not the ones you wanted.
> feigning forgetfulness
is what your ally said so he just said he forget, didn't need to invoke it but actually did because this man is a better lawyer than you and probably understands what is happening a lot more than you.

>Kamala

No white person should have to answer any questions poised by a darkie

justice.gov/olc/opinion/congressional-requests-confidential-executive-branch-information

You are a waste.

First page

...

have you ever even been in a courtroom? Have you ever really used the laws or just read them and shitpost on this website?

...

Trump Cucks are dumb fucks. They'll lose always in the end.

Trump will lose but he'll have their money so he won't care. He has no honor.

t. Increasingly nervous man

...

He was claiming two different things. Executive privilege, and then some DOJ statute where he doesn't have to answer a question related to the executive branch.

Executive privilege wasn't invoked, so that's irrelevant.

The other one is not disclosed as to its wording or purpose so they should have held him in contempt since he knew they would want to know after the previous hearing.

They should put heavy stones on him till he confesses to colliding with Soviet Union.

He did answer her questions though. But she tries to set an agenda and get whoever she doesn't like to admit or deny whatever it is that she want to use against them by her "YES OR NO!?!" Bullshit. Anyone past 5 years of age knows that most answers are not a simple yes or no.

Contempt over something that is nothing but Muh Russians.

this is basically what wants.

Yeah fuck that motherfucker sessions not answering those loaded questions he should have just said
>what difference does it make.

He's a rambler because he doesn't like to answer direct and matter-of-factly. It's an old and proven tactic to avoid perjuring yourself.

The only people who allow his rambling are conservatives who ask him softball questions.

Then they can have his body quartered, and his head put on a pike for Lèse-majesté against Her Thighness Hillary.

>front page
>LOADED QUESTION : Asking a question that has an assumption built into it so that it can't be answered without appearing guilty

The only people who ask loaded questions as the great Senator Kamala are people with an agenda who are trying to profit through the degradation of someone else.

One, if you don't like the answer. Tough fucking luck. It is the answer, and your free to ask another question. Not simply make implications and "bitchy black sassy lady" faces because you so stronk.

Half of her questions in almost all the proceeding except for the Comey one (which she thought she was profiting from) havn't even been anything someone could reasonably answer.
It's more like bullshit gossip.

"Do you think that MR. TRUMP feels like so and so would be cool?!? YES OR NO! YES OR NOR ANSWER THE QUESTION!" HMMMMMMM....ILL TAKE THAT AS I WANT TOO AND MAKE A SASSY FACE AT THE CAMERA TOO"

She didn't ask him a single loaded question. If he was innocent he could have simply answered her directly instead of rambling and wavering with irrelevant information to avoid the points at hand.

It was a yes or no question: Did you ask for the statute you would use in your defense today?

The answer was "no" because he couldn't provide it. But he wanted to ramble and say "we talked about it" which is not the answer.

freedom of speech

damn it feels good to be (confederate) american

Do you think your boss likes random employee number 9? Do you think he's going to fire him? Do you think they are fucking each other in the closet?

YES OR NO, YES OR NO ANSWER THE QUESTION NOW!

Do you think that given how much I don't like you you wouldn't be a shifty fuck face?
YES OR NO YES OR NO NOW!!!!


Hmmmmm.....I'll take that as a Yes or No..

>freedom of speech applies when under oath in a congressional hearing

lol what a dumb nigger

day of the rope is coming. fags like you'll hang EXTRA high

I watched the whole thing, and then fell asleep, I'll absolutely waste my not so valuable time to go and read over the entire thing again.

it's one big fat nothing burger... A. GAIN,

The only rope is the one you'll think about using in your prison cell, nigger.

>is not the answer.
for you. its not the answer you wanted I said this like 3 posts ago.
Hillary didn't get in trouble, Bush didn't get in trouble, the real Clinton didn't get in trouble. These people don't get in trouble.

The answer someone wants is irrelevant. Why is this so hard for you?

This defense was used with Coats and Rogers, which not even Burr was satisfied with. So the INTELLIGENCE APPROACH would then be for anyone else who wished to use this defense to actually LOOK UP THE STATUTE and bring it in writing for the congressional panel to see and to understand. Not to mention the American people to understand.

Her question was not unreasonable. Why did he not ask for the statute before coming so that he could appear legitimate and honest? Because he appeared the exact opposite.

>Why did he not ask for the statute before coming so that he could appear legitimate and honest?
Sessions knows probably because he understands what he is doing better than you maybe? Maybe it was just stupidity on his part? Maybe he forgot.

When you have multiple senators telling you that your defense is running thin when you can't provide evidence that it exists, including Republican ones, then it's time to put up or shut up.

If he doesn't want to answer the question he needs to man up and plead the 5th, or have Trump impose executive privilege. Neither of which happened.

Muh Constitution sez sessions has to answer muh Russian questions

Fuck them. Congress is an equal partner with the Executive Branch.

They don't get to demand shit from Cabinet members and treat them like shit.

>he needs to man up and plead the 5th, or have Trump impose executive privilege. Neither of which happened.
and then it ended and now its over and we can all talk about how upset we are about things that didnt happen. or we can acknowledge nothing happened and this was blown out of proportion for media coverage numbers.

It's not a statute, it's just internal department procedure. The Justice Department is under the Executive branch and is therefore under the command of the President. Unless there is a congressional mandate for the Justice Department to act in a certain manner, they can do whatever they want internally to fulfill their function. She was asking if he read the literal document describing internal procedure. Her raking Sessions over the coals repeatedly asking this was actually pretty stupid.

These are long standing doj policies that people forgot existed over the last 8 years.
And kamala knew he wouldn't answer but she wanted people like you to take the bait. And you did.

Or we can do what you're doing and pretend nothing happened and not push government officials to either answer questions or provide the statute for which they're refusing.

That's bullshit and you know it. Sessions came completely unprepared to defend the defense he would use because it probably doesn't exist.

If it doesn't exist then how was their a precedent for previous attorney generals using the same defense? Maybe I'm confusing it with the allowing presidential privilege defense

Koko Harris needs to grow an afro! Because she's a SASSY black woman!!

>Sessions came completely unprepared
And? Is this illegal even if it's actually true? Not that preparedness is a measurable quantity. In any case I'm pretty sure the specific document that crazy ape was screeching about was not an actual law but more like "recommended internal procedure".

>you have to audibly invoke it

That sounds like bullshit to me. I don't have to audibly invoke anything before exercising my second ammendment rights on people.