Jeff Sessions

AG Sessions Recuses Himself from Trump-Russia Investigations

The right move even before the latest revelations.

|

via ABC

Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced today that he would be recusing himself from any investigation related to the election campaign. The news comes after reports of two conversations with the U.S. ambassador to Russia Sessions had last year as senator, which he did not disclose in answers in his confirmation hearing. Multiple Democrats and Republicans in Congress called for Sessions to recuse himself.

Sessions did not frame his decision as being influenced by the recent news. Instead, he said it derived from his role as a campaign surrogate, saying he began discussions with Justice Department ethics officials soon after being confirmed. "They said that since I had involvement with the campaign, I should not be involved in any campaign investigation," Sessions said at today's press conference, which The Washington Post reported was "hastily-called."

As I wrote earlier today, the fact that Sessions was a Trump surrogate should be enough for him to recuse himself from election-related investigations. Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch probably should have similarly recused herself from the Hillary Clinton investigations after meeting with Bill, but past failures should not excuse present ones. Sessions himself made that case about Lynch—despite his many flaws it's welcome to see him in this case apply his standards for others to himself.

Attorneys general should be doing a lot more recusing themselves in investigations of political matters, and with luck Sessions' decision can be the start of an important precedent. The Sessions affair is an illustration of the inevitable politicization of the Department of Justice, and a strong reminder of the importance of limiting the power of federal law enforcement, and of taking measures to ensure its independence in its most important domain, investigating federal and other government officials.

NEXT: ISIS Presence in Afghanistan Shouldn't Complicate U.S. Deployment Decisions

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This Russia hysteria is getting to be dangerous, though. Democratic partisans and neoconservatives are going to push this administration into a conflict with Russia. All because Podesta was not clever enough to think of a better e-mail password than ‘password’.

    1. It wasn’t his password that was dumb, it was that he gave it out because of a phishing site.

      1. Both are true. He was stupid to give it out, and password is still a stupid password.

        Also he lost a campaign for a candidate impervious against criminal investigations to Donald Trump. Strike three.

        1. The Keebler elf with the southern drawl is comparably stupid.

    2. This Russia hysteria is getting to be dangerous…

      No doubt.

      Putin: “Wait a second… Are you telling me that all it takes to get a cabinet member of the United States in serious trouble is to have one of my government officials talk to him before the election? And the opposition party does everything they can to aid me in getting him into trouble? Where do I sign up?”

      1. Hate to disillusion you Mr. Putin, but this process works only on the Republicans. You’ll have to think of something else for Democrat administrations (and the press, of course).

        1. Hell, 30 Democrats met with Russians to grease the way for the Iran deal passage.

          I notice that there wasn’t a ton of concern then or now.

          Odd.

    3. Don’t hurt yourself twisting Trump’s collusion with Russia into someone else’s problem.

      1. I like how you mention collusion as if it’s something that exists, despite the complete and total lack of any evidence whatsoever – LITERALLY ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER – supporting this delusional, paranoid conspiracy theory.

        1. Yeah total lack of evidence. Fuck you, Republican putrescence.

          1. There’s as much evidence of collusion as there is of the Obamas and Jarrett seeking to commit sedition.

          2. so what’s the evidence? We know your guy Obama was actively involved in Israel’s election in 2015; tens of thousands of tax dollars were sent to help Bibi’s opponent. Where is anything even remotely similar here?

          3. I am in favor of anything that discredits the Trump administration (or any administration in power), and I am suspicious of any liberty lover that is not.

            1. I can understand that, but this agitprop involves trying to turn Russia into an adversary again, which seems pretty damn stupid and short sighted.

              1. Agreed.

      2. “Don’t hurt yourself twisting Trump’s collusion with Russia into someone else’s problem.”

        And here you claim to have more than a passing knowledge of the English language.
        Fucking liar.

      3. What is your evidence of collusion and how?

        1. Are you fucking kidding? Peel your eyes away from Steve Doocey’s crotch for five minutes, how about?

          1. So Tony, basically nothing more than “MUH FEEEEEEEELZ”

            Are you wastes of carbon molecules going to call for McCaskill to resign while you’re at it?

            1. You’re going to have to consult mainstream, reliable sources of news in order for you to be remotely present in any conversation on this subject. Please do avail yourself and check back with me.

              1. You’re going to have to consult mainstream, reliable sources of news in order for you to be remotely present in any conversation on this subject.

                You’re going to have to cease simple-simon appeals to authority before commenting on the subject at hand.

                1. Please don’t feed the troll. I know, I’m guilty of it sometimes too. It can be just so hard to resist. And it can be so entertaining to watch him squirm. That’s why we have to stand together and remind each other during times of individual weakness. Please don’t feed the troll.

      4. Um, who lobbied for the deal giving Russia our uranium?

        The Podesta Group.

        Any guess who’s pretty closely tied to them?

    4. You’re the one bringing it there by framing it as some grave insult to the Russian people for us to question whether our rulers lied to us to avoid the stench of associating with Putin. That happens to be exactly how the Kemlin frames it too. As if we insult the people of Russia by insulting their despotic rulers. I see right through both of you.

      1. “…whether our rulers lied to us to avoid the stench of associating with Putin.”

        Keep spinning like that and you could screw yourself right into the ground.

      2. Poor thing–and after McCaskill shot herself right in the foot today, too.

  2. “recuse himself from election-related investigations.”

    Considering the monument to stupidity those investigations will be, anyone with half a brain will stay as far away from them as they can.

  3. This has already passed Benghazi levels of unnecessary hysteria.

  4. This has already passed Benghazi levels of unnecessary hysteria.

    1. That would require 34 hearings as opposed to 0. There’s still time.

      1. That would require 34 hearings as opposed to 0. There’s still time.

        Hey guys, it is absolutely unacceptable for a senate member of the foreign relations committee to ever speak to a foreign emissary. It is, however, perfectly acceptable for a president to order a rescue operation to stand down for political reasons and then lie to the entire country about the motive and who was involved. You heard it here first.

        1. Sessions was not a member of the Senate Foreign Relations committee from what I understand though I’m not positive but he was appointed as the chairman of Donald Trump’s foreign policy advisory committee in March of 2016. The distinction is important because it bears upon the question of who Sessions was representing when he was meeting with the Russian ambassador and it explains why the Russian ambassador approached him in the first place on the understanding that Sessions represented the Trump campaign. That Sessions seeks to pretend like he was meeting the Russian ambassador as some ordinary course of his service on the Senate Armed Services committee is telling as well. It’s further misrepresentation.

          1. Sessions was not a member of the Senate Foreign Relations committee

            He was if people believe he was, and that is all that matters.

          2. it explains why the Russian ambassador approached him in the first place on the understanding that Sessions represented the Trump campaign.

            Proof?

        2. No one ordered that rescue operation to “stand down”, you stupid redneck.

        3. So you still believe the long-debunked rightwing lie narrative about that, huh?

      2. Can a minority party call for committee hearings?

        I wonder how the number of major news headlines compares between the two stories.

  5. The way back machine reminds us that 2015, Obama’s State Dept was giving money to groups opposing the sitting Prime Minister of a supposed ally. That very real election interference was ignored (or supported) by those manufacturing Russian influence in this election.

    What grade of tinfoil is required for that? And, seriously, is this the hill the Dems want to die on? They’re headed for Green Party status.

  6. I suspect that the reason why Democrats have been going after AG Sessions is because they have reason to believe that a full investigation of the DNC hacks would reveal further wrongdoing on the part of the DNC ? possibly of the prosecutable versus merely embarrassing variety and this is a preemptive attempt at scuttling a prosecution of their leadership.

    1. Jesus Christ! Team Red is out in force!

      1. Getting concerned your party is full of corruption huh gleemore?

  7. So, libertarians for authoritarian former communist states? Or is it just libertarians for fat orange-faced morons who happen to be in bed with authoritarian former communists?

    You people, I swear. A Democrat looks at you the wrong way and it’s the literal death of freedom. A Republican can be the biggest buffoon in the universe and you fall over yourselves defending him. You’re sad and pathetic.

    1. Why is being a “former communist” a bad thing? Because they’re quitters?

      1. Funny you mention “former” because Sessions seems to think the Russian ambassador is very much a current communist because he didn’t professs a belief in God in their meeting.

      2. Because now they’re kleptocrats.

        1. Because now they’re kleptocrats

          “But the 75 years before the fall of the Soviet Union they were as pure as the driven snow! My professor told me so!”

      3. Why is being a “former communist” a bad thing? because they’re quitters?

        No, apostates to the one true religion and the punishment for apostasy is death.

    2. Being a buffoon does not necessarily mean loss of freedom

      You seem miserable

    3. Democrats are always the enemy.

      1. Well they don’t control anything right now so stop blaming them for shit the orange fuckface does.

        1. Well they don’t control anything right now so stop blaming them for shit the orange fuckface does.

          Since the orange fuckface hasn’t done anything, you can stop REEEEEEEEEing about chickenshit for once in your life.

        2. The Orange Fuckface isn’t the one trumping up national hatred and feelings of war towards another country.

          At the moment, at least.

    4. Tony’s on board for a war with Russia.

      For liberty!!!

    5. Russia for me is similar to my opinions on Iran.

      I dislike both countries. Immensely. One persecutes my religion, the other persecuted my grandmother and her family.

      But I don’t want to be at war with either.

  8. The right move even before the latest revelations.

    The “revelation” that he answered a specific question specifically? I mean, I would like him to be gone, but this is stupid.

  9. In Soviet Russia, investigation recuse you!

  10. “Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch probably should have similarly recused herself from the Hillary Clinton investigations after meeting with Bill, but past failures should not excuse present ones.”

    Past failures should not excuse present ones, but then past failures should also never be forgotten.

    1. Or to put it another way, hypocrites should be granted the victories and advantages they seek in selectively applying the rules, while suffering no downside, thereby teaching them to behave more honorably in the future.

  11. Good for her, I say.

    SPOKANE, Wash. ? Former Spokane, Washington, NAACP leader Rachel Dolezal, who resigned amid criticism that she was passing herself off as black, has changed her name to Nkechi Amare Diallo.

    Court documents show a judge granted her request on Oct. 7, 2016. Her new name has origins in Africa.

    The former Dolezal has acknowledged that she is “Caucasian biologically” but says she identifies as black.

    1. I don’t understand why she gets all that crap for pretending to be black, yet that Shaun King guy continues to do so unapologetically.

      1. Oh yes, the “black” guy who pretty much accused his mother of being a cheating whore to explain his two white parents.

    2. You know, you could have changed your name to anything. Like Princess Consuela Banana-Hammock.

  12. Sessions should perhaps recuse himself from any Justice Department activities related to federal drug laws, too, on the grounds of either …

    1) irremediable stupidity, or

    2) willful ignorance,

    his choice.

    1. Good people do not smoke the marijuana, Rick. It’s a scientific fact.

    2. The Trumptard administration is filled with idiots like Sessions, Rick W Perry, Ben Carsons, etc.

      Although I have some hope for Mnuchin. Maybe one of them is competent.

      1. Name calling is always a good look. Means you have solid arguments usually

        1. I was being complimentary.

          I mentioned Mnuchin.

      2. Well, we just had eight years of Joe “Family Lovin’ is A-OK” Biden as VP.

  13. Sweden reinstates military draft over concerns about Russian aggression

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/…../98641010/

    Trump is following Putin’s orders to dissolve NATO – Sweden should be concerned.

    1. “Trump is following Putin’s orders to dissolve NATO – Sweden should be concerned.”

      Turd posts a howler!

    2. So when is nato being dissolved?

      Why cant euros defend themselves?

    3. You realize Sweden isn’t in NATO?

      1. Hey, it’s turd!
        Facts? Who needs ’em when you can lie and hope someone’s equally stupid!

      2. Never said it was. But if NATO unravels Russia will have easy pickings of nearby countries.

        1. Palin’s Buttplug|3.2.17 @ 9:28PM|#
          “Never said it was. But if NATO unravels Russia will have easy pickings of nearby countries.”

          So instead of a lie, it’s a non-sequitur?
          I’m sure you’re stupid enough to think that’s better. ‘Cause you are stupid.

    4. You misspelled “Requesting NATO allies honor the treaty they agreed to” there.

      Odd that the US is expected to follow every clause of every treaty…but literally nobody else is.

  14. Sessions betrayed an important truth about his motivation and psychology when he took questions at the press conference. He said that when he met the Ambassador he told a story about a time he visited Russia on a mission to foster Christian fellowship. If you really want to understand the conservative infatuation with Russian society you start here. You understand its about religion and conservative social values. For Trump Russia represents money but for conservatives like Sessions and the religious people he associates with Russia represents cultural brother and ally in the struggle against secular forces. There’s your betrayal. These social cons have thrown in with the Christian authoritarians in Russia to fight secular Americans.

    1. “…There’s your betrayal. These social cons have thrown in with the Christian authoritarians in Russia to fight secular Americans.”

      Hyperbole? Sarc?
      Nope, just abysmal stupidity.

      1. Quit spamming the board, you dumbass.

      2. No, I just listen to Christian and conservative radio and take them at their word.

        1. Memory Hole|3.2.17 @ 8:20PM|#
          “No, I just listen to Christian and conservative radio and take them at their word.”

          That explains quite a bit, actually.

          1. God you’re such a fucking moron it’s painful.

            1. Tony|3.2.17 @ 9:11PM|#
              “God you’re such a fucking moron it’s painful.”

              That post explains quite a bit, actually. About you.

    2. Jesus Christ.

      Progressivism is a mental disorder.

      1. And being a Canadian is handicap if you’re out to understand the American experience.

        1. Rufus is a fan of US style Christo-Fascist conservatism.

          Think Jesse Helms or Ben Carson.

          1. Like I said…

          2. I could see how one could flirt with those types if they were surrounded and insulated by a web of relative cultural sanity that exists in Canada. Living here in Louisiana doesn’t afford me that luxury.

            1. Right. I live in Georgia and have grown to despise the conservative movement. Since I am as liberal/libertarian as anyone could possibly be (support abortion, euthanasia, hard drugs, legal prostitution, all guns, etc) as well as Warren Buffett macho capitalism the TEAM RED! wingnuts here hate my guts.

              I enjoy their hate. It shows what partisan assholes they are.

              (I like to fill in new posters here from time to time)

              1. Thanks for the surreal moment you two.

              2. “Since I am as liberal/libertarian as anyone could possibly be (support abortion, euthanasia, hard drugs, legal prostitution, all guns, etc) as well as Warren Buffett macho capitalism the TEAM RED! wingnuts here hate my guts”

                Tell us again how NATO is being dissolved and how that affects Sweden.
                Equally amusing lies.

              3. Doesn’t Buffet make an awful lot of money with companies who get huge benefits from the government?

                Wouldn’t call that “macho capitalism”, but YMMV.

                1. All US companies get huge benefits from the government.

                  In fact, the libertarian Kochs spend 10x the lobbying money that Berkshire does to get their favors done.

                  1. “In fact, the libertarian Kochs spend 10x the lobbying money that Berkshire does to get their favors done.”

                    Cite missing, but we’ll let that ride for now.
                    Why should that hypocrite Buffett spend anything when he can pick up a phone?
                    Do you EVER post anything that isn’t a lie or cherry-picked ‘data’?
                    Fuck off.

                  2. But Buffett is held up as “pro-macho capitalism”.

                    Yet he isn’t. He loves government subsidy capitalism.

                    Don’t blame me if you make weak points.

                    Kochs want the government to spend less. Buffett wants it to spend more. Gee, wonder which one has more support in DC.

  15. Here’s an analogy of what I think took place here. Trump and the Republicans took a ride with a Russian friend named Putin. And on that trip they let their friend out at a gas station. The friend came back with a bag of money and a gun tucked into his pants. Along the trip that friend let slip he robbed the gas station. The Republicans let him buy the drinks that night anyway.

    1. Here’s an analogy of what I think took place here.

      “Memory Hole” was an apt moniker for you to choose.

    2. Check Aisle 6; tin foil hats ’bout half way down on the left.

    3. Well, Trump should’ve just promised more flexibility if he won. Then there’d be no concerns if he sold them a shit-ton of uranium instead of doing, literally, nothing to benefit them to date.

  16. Honest GOPer David Frum’s Twitter feed:

    https://goo.gl/Nv0khE

    Worth reading.

    1. Hasn’t Frum been off the GOP reservation since about 1992?

      1. I recall him as a big Bush 43 fan.

        1. “the biggest espionage scandal since the Rosenberg group stole the secret of the atomic bomb.”

          Yeah, turd, real reliable source right there.

    2. “David Frum” and “worth reading” have never been in the same sentence without the word “isn’t” in decades.

  17. Have we ever seen anything like this with a transition of power?

    The outgoing administration setting up a set of information from classified data sources to be used after the new administration comes in to initiate investigations into that administration?

    Obviously nothing exactly similar, but I can’t imagine that we’ve even had anything approaching this. They spent their last 3 months in power running around trying to lay the groundwork for impeaching the administration to follow, using classified intelligence.

    Remember all the handwringing about the peaceful transfer of power and respecting the outcome of elections when Hillary wins? Remember all that talk about “elections have consequences”?

    These people are astonishing. They make the indefensible ignorable. They make the unbearable into a footnote. Everyone is ignoring this story, but whatever happened with Trump, Manchurian candidate or not, it should be secondary to the unbelievable attack on the democratic transfer of power that is the actions of Obama and his minions.

    1. The outgoing administration setting up a set of information from classified data sources

      “Set up” or preserved?

      1. Set up. Not even seriously arguable. They brag that they intentionally lowered classification levels on intel and distributed it as widely as possible.

        If they wanted to preserve it they could have just classified it normally and passed it off to the existing AG last fall. They also could have informed congress and passed off the intel.

        No. They wanted an “organic” investigation and independent prosecutors. You don’t have to infer this. They came right out and said it. They are very proud of it and happy to brag to the press about how they set it up so they wouldn’t have their fingerprints on it.

        1. What is your source? I would like to read it.

          If correct it seriously damages the case against Trump.

          1. The NYT are reporting it (with a veneer of spin), among others.

            At intelligence agencies, there was a push to process as much raw intelligence as possible into analyses, and to keep the reports at a relatively low classification level to ensure as wide a readership as possible across the government ? and, in some cases, among European allies.

            If they seriously believed that Trump and the Russians were colluding in an illegal way, they would have done more than bring in a bunch of friendly reporters ahead of the election to tell them that “all intelligence agencies agree that the Russians are trying to hack the election for Trump”. They knew they didn’t have anything real. Also, they probably figured Trump wasn’t going to win anyway so they didn’t worry as much until after the election. But they didn’t take action on what they had while in office – so either they were seriously derelict in their duties then, or they have been setting up an intentional smear campaign so that they can get that independent prosecutor started and let him be a pain in Trump’s ass for the rest of his term.

            (none of which is to suggest that there isn’t actually anything there. Obama’s people being horrible doesn’t preclude Trump’s people being even worse. But that story is getting the attention it deserves, and more.)

            1. But they wanted to make sure that just in case a smoking gun was to show up, they could catch it. So they over-classified the intel about where the data was coming from – to avoid tipping off any Trump folks:

              The opposite happened with the most sensitive intelligence, including the names of sources and the identities of foreigners who were regularly monitored. Officials tightened the already small number of people who could access that information. They knew the information could not be kept from the new president or his top advisers, but wanted to narrow the number of people who might see the information, officials said.

              That way people who are not in office yet won’t shut up. And even when they are in office, maybe they won’t figure out what is going on for a while.

              Because they didn’t have anything yet. But just in case….. just in case….. they wanted to make sure that the fact that people were listening was kept secret.

            2. “If they seriously believed that Trump and the Russians were colluding in an illegal way, they would have done more than bring in a bunch of friendly reporters ahead of the election to tell them that “all intelligence agencies agree that the Russians are trying to hack the election for Trump”.”

              So far, no one has so much as suggested what such ‘illegal collusion’ might possibly be, nor has anyone bothered to identify themselves as the source.
              Did the Russkies pack ballot boxes? Did they finance Trump ads? What SPECIFICALLY are they accused of doing?
              Remember “we’ll release the details on Thursday”? Well, there have been many Thursdays come and gone, and we’re still left with nothing more than turd, Tony and our new lefty (tin foil hat) troll whining that their candidate LOST!!!!!
              Fuck off, losers. She was so bad, she lost to Trump.

            3. The link doesn’t support your claim that the Obama White House was doctoring (Cheney style) or “setting up” (your words) the intel.

              In fact, it supports my claim that they only intended to preserve the intel:

              At the Obama White House, Mr. Trump’s statements stoked fears among some that intelligence could be covered up or destroyed ? or its sources exposed ? once power changed hands. What followed was a push to preserve the intelligence that underscored the deep anxiety with which the White House and American intelligence agencies had come to view the threat from Moscow.

              Nice try but total failure.

              1. Palin’s Buttplug|3.2.17 @ 9:26PM|#
                “In fact, it supports my claim that they only intended to preserve the intel:”

                You, Tony and the new tin-foil-hat lefty troll just keep telling yourselves stories; fantasy is basic to lefty ideology.

                1. Sevo, you incredibly stupid TEAM RED! asshole, what part of “What followed was a push to preserve the intelligence” do you not understand?

                  1. Palin’s Buttplug|3.2.17 @ 9:33PM|#
                    “Sevo, you incredibly stupid TEAM RED! asshole, what part of “What followed was a push to preserve the intelligence” do you not understand?”

                    Turd, you fucking lefty liar, what part of “irrelevant” do you not understand?

                  2. “What followed was a push to preserve the intelligence”

                    That is a laughable fig leaf. Anyone who believes that this was the true motivation is wearing partisan blinders or is stupid at a metaphysical level.

                    The two intelligence committees, the foreign affairs committees, the agencies themselves…. All could have easily “preserved” the info post inauguration without any need for wide dissemination or leaks. Plus, ordering the destruction of the intelligence would have been illegal anyway.

                    It is dumb to pretend they were just concerned citizens worried about preserving The Truth.

                    Plus, Obama could have declassified the whole thing all by himself at any time he pleased and released it all in a press conference. But he didn’t. He preferred that the whole thing come out as a series of leaks to the press.

                    1. “What followed was a push to preserve the intelligence”
                      —————————
                      “That is a laughable fig leaf. Anyone who believes that this was the true motivation is wearing partisan blinders or is stupid at a metaphysical level.”

                      True.
                      Lefty losers presume ‘preserving intelligence’ requires some sort of special actions. It doesn’t; claiming heroics for doing so is whining on the part of the LOSERS.
                      She was so pathetic, she lost to Trump, losers.
                      Get lost.

                    2. That is a laughable fig leaf.

                      I am quoting YOUR source!

                    3. Palin’s Buttplug|3.2.17 @ 9:52PM|#
                      “I am quoting YOUR source!”

                      There is stupid, there is really stupid, there is (you get the message).
                      Turd, that was quoted as an example of the bias of the source.
                      But, given turd’s stupidity, that WOOSHED right by turd’s comprehension.
                      …and then there is “turd-stupid”.
                      Fuck off.

              2. I never said they were doctoring anything. I said they set up this entire scenario to undermine the incoming administration. That is the entirety of what that article said.

                Not that they “made up” any intel. I don’t see how you could seriously get that.

                If they were honestly following the intel where it led, they would have “preserved” it in the usual way. If they thought that a prosecution was in order, they could have brought such a prosecution in November. Or December. Or January. But they didn’t’ – because it wasn’t.

                Instead they spent that time period lowering classification levels, asking staged questions in irrelevant meetings and passing around classified summary reports as far and widely as they could – so that after the inauguration they could be leaked, initiating scandal and investigation. That’s what they claimed they did.

                At the same time, they artificially raised the classification of “materials and methods” intel, so that Trump’s people couldn’t learn how they were being spied upon.

                All of this has only one purpose…. to act as a poison pill for the incoming administration. They dress it up in the silly pretext that they are worried that Trump will cover it up if they don’t disseminate it and leak it to the press and friendly congressmen to start investigations, but those words mean the same thing.

                Like I said – none of this means that Trump isn’t guilty as sin. Only that Obama’s team sabotaged Trump using classified information.

                1. If they preserved it in the usual way the Trump administration might have “covered up or destroyed” (your link’s words) – the intel.

                  That is the textbook definition of “preserve” – a term I used and later you linked to a supporting source.

                  1. If they preserved it in the usual way the Trump administration might have “covered up or destroyed” (your link’s words) – the intel.

                    “Might have” shows just how paranoid the Obama administration really was.

                  2. Palin’s Buttplug|3.2.17 @ 9:50PM|#
                    “If they preserved it in the usual way the Trump administration might have “covered up or destroyed” (your link’s words) – the intel.”

                    Let’s see; some pathetic attempt at a hypothetical and some innuendo. Yep, that’s turd for you!
                    Do you really hope those who read your bullshit are as dumb as you?
                    Protip; outside of your lefty buds, hardly anyone is.
                    Go fuck your daddy, turd.

  18. FYI Peanuts – A bitcoin is now worth more than an ounce of gold (in USD).

    1. Cool story bro. How’s the price of a troy oz of gold looking now? When is that 50% collapse supposed to happen, by the way? I’d have better luck staring down a divining rod or consulting the advice of a feng shui master.

      1. Gold is already down about 35% since its high about five years ago.

  19. I see this is all liberals’ and Democrats’ faults still.

    What stunning insight you all have into the world.

    1. Tony|3.2.17 @ 9:14PM|#
      “I see this is all liberals’ and Democrats’ faults still.”

      Your candidate was so pathetic, she lost to Trump.
      You LOST, loser. Fuck off.

        1. “Spam”

          You LOST, loser. Fuck off.

      1. Lost the electoral college, surely the most libertarian institution ever devised.

        I am genuinely sad for how stupid you are.

  20. This entire thread is a tar pit of stupidity. Hat tap. Toodles.

    1. Sevo pisses all over another thread. He is worse than that ‘Mary’ character from several years ago – nothing but one inane bleat after another.

      1. Palin’s Buttplug|3.2.17 @ 10:08PM|#
        “Sevo pisses all over another thread.”

        Loser turd tries to blame someone else for turd’s backing a loser all over another thread.
        Fuck off, loser.
        You LOST.

  21. Reason.com republicans posing as libertarians cannot be happy

    1. MarconiDarwin|3.3.17 @ 12:01AM|#
      “Reason.com republicans posing as libertarians cannot be happy”

      Is there a point there worthy of attention, or just some loser whine?

  22. I can see what your saying… Raymond `s article is surprising, last week I bought a top of the range Acura from making $4608 this-past/month and-a little over, $10,000 this past month . with-out any question its the easiest work I’ve ever had . I began this five months/ago and almost straight away startad bringin in minimum $82 per-hr

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.moneytime10.com

  23. I am making $89/hour telecommuting. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is acquiring $10 thousand a month by working on the web, that was truly shocking for me, she prescribed me to attempt it. simply give it a shot on the accompanying site.

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_ http://www.moneytime10.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.