Jeff Sessions, Mitch McConnell, 40+ others in GOP Congress think obstruction of justice should get a President removed

Oh my goodness, Jess Secessions? Why I do declare that cracker used to think the KKK was AOK
UNTIL he discovered to his eternal horror that the Klan smoked cannabis!!!
(drags fainting couch into position)

the horror! the horror!


Yeah, you’d think a lawyer, of all people … in America, of all places … would remember that particular gem of jurisprudence.


And that’s kind of our starting point here.

It sort of makes you wonder, is Jefferson Beauregard Stonewall Robert E. Lee Nathan Bedford Forrest Sessions’ memory really that bad, or is HE lying to Congess when he constantly says, “I don’t recall.”?

…and only the snow can begin to explain
what children republicans are apt to forget to remember
with up so floating many bells down…
…not e e cummings

If you accept that the political Right has never got rid of its inner 4 year old, makes perfect sense.

1 Like

The key is how do you define “obstruction of justice.”

I would think any reasonable person would see that asking the head of the FBI to give allegiance to the President (over the law), then asking him to back off an investigation, then firing him and saying in a public interview that he was fired because of what he was investigating would clearly be considered obstruction of justice.

So the next question is how do you define “reasonable person”?


Absolutely. I feel like I’m being redundant because I keep bringing this up.

But right now the republicans are afraid of two things. One that abandoning Trump will endanger their legislative agenda. (just as they’re afraid of not passing anything so they’re brow beating themselves into passing legislation even their own members don’t support). And primary challenges from further right and trumpist candidates. Both because successful challenges remove incumbents from power. And because a split in the party endangers their overall majorities.

Until they become convinced that the risk to their reelection chances and control of federal and state governments are endangered by backing Trump. Until the risk is challenges from the left and by progressives. They’ll keep making excuses.

This is pure cynicism. Not ideological support.


I think they should charge him with perjury on that. He lying, he does recall. There is no reasonable doubt of that. I don’t understand why people think that’s some kind of bulletproof defense. When he was asked a question he actually didn’t know the answer to he said, “I have no idea.” The mere use of the phrase should make any reasonable person believe he was coached by a lawyer to lie.


Spoiled 4 year olds.


This headline is really a back-handed insult to Democrats. Clinton was never removed from office, so apparently Obstruction of Justice isn’t cause for that, according to Dems, so why would it be now?

Of course, Clinton’s was about lying about getting a beej, and Trumps is about colluding with a foreign power to destabilize the country, but potato potahto.

1 Like

I take it a slightly different way. The Clinton impeachment highlights why this doesn’t matter. If it comes to impeachment, the question is going to be whether obstruction of justice occurred, not whether it’s bad. Of course Mitch McConnell thinks obstruction of justice is bad. He will not admit that Trump obstructed justice until it is politically convenient for him to do so.

1 Like

How about we start with impeachment and see where that takes us?

Not until we have a Democratic congress.

1 Like

If a Christian does it, it’s not wrong.


I won’t claim to know what’s going on inside McConnell’s head, and what he thinks is bad, but I come to the same conclusion. McConnell is as self-serving and spineless as any other congressperson, and he’s not about to take down the new messiah of his brand.

The reason I bring this up is because this will be the inevitable retaliation by the brand-indoctrinated. The whataboutism to Clinton will be the basic retort, and that’s really what this attack on Sessions, McConnell is. I’m not saying they don’t deserve to be ridiculed and mocked (for this, and dozens/hundreds of other reasons), but this one in particular seems like it’s coming from a very poor angle, strategically.

The bullet resistance of that defence depends upon the priviliege of the defendant. “I don’t recall” is not an effective legal strategy for poor people.

It’s a convenient figleaf to disguise the pervasive injustice of the system. Kinda similar to “stand your ground” laws in that respect.


This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.