So, is everyone clear that between Coats, Rogers and now Sessions, a brand new

[Atticus]

never before recognized or accepted privilege has been created? It is the "We're not claiming executive privilege-that would be inappropriate-just in case I'm preserving the right to claim executive privilege-other privileges may apply-in keeping with long-standing DOJ policy which I think may be in writing"-----privilege.

If this blatant BULLSHIT is allowed to stand, it is over.

[spanone]

1. it's bullshit. sounds like steve bannon logic

[bresue]

2. Thesse interviews were so rehearsed.....

[Still In Wisconsin]

19. They were. It was almost like (gasp) Sessions KNEW the QUESTIONS BEFOREHAND...

the Republican ones, I mean.

[jpak]

3. It's a double-secret executive privilege that only repugs can invoke

yup

[appal_jack]

16. Ah, so that's why it was never mentioned from 2008-2016...

What a curious and fascinating privilege!

Or, y'know, Sessions could be a lying, treasonous POS.

k&r,

-app

[Control-Z]

21. I vote this.

"Sessions could be a lying, treasonous POS."

But not "could be". IS. He is a lying, treasonous POS. I'd bet money.

[Tanuki]

4. It's the "We were speaking within the cone of silence" privilege

[marylandblue]

7. Good because it never worked 😁

[TrollBuster9090]

24. And when the cone of silence wasn't working...we used the portable cone of silence.

Comey reminded me of Hymie the Robot.

[marylandblue]

5. But Sessions went a little further

And said it was long standing DOJ policy. He went to far, there is no such policy and the committee called him on it, with Harris specifically asking for a copy of the policy.

[hamsterjill]

6. The legal term is contempt.

It must be dealt with for the very reason that you indicate. If allowed to stand, no Congressional hearing will ever have credibility again.

[marylandblue]

8. Chairman Burr would have to invoke contempt

And I don't think he will go there

[hamsterjill]

9. I'm sure you're right, but we need to call it what it is.

And it is blatant contempt.

[procon]

10. They invented a bizarro legal argument, tossed out there, and amazingly,

the damned thing actually flew! It boggles the mind that Republican can get away with this crap with no penalties. They pulled off the same stunt with Judge Garland.

[mucifer]

11. I will listen to Norman Goldman tonight. He gives some great legal analysis of the craziness

from a liberal democratic POV.

normangoldman.com his show is on 5pm central time.

[BigmanPigman]

12. Must have an Independent Investigation Commission NOW!

[dchill]

13. It's not new, the name is just different...

It's called contempt of Congress, it's just not enforced by Republicans on Republicans anymore.

[babylonsister]

14. Contempt of Congress

Jennifer Rubin: Contempt of Congress
http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/Op-Ed/2017/06/08/Jennifer-Rubin-Contempt-of-Congress/stories/201706080031

Jennifer Rubin: Contempt of Congress
Intelligence officials shouldn’t be allowed to stonewall at a congressional oversight hearing
Jennifer Rubin
12:00 AM
Jun 8, 2017


Again and again Wednesday at the hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats and National Security Agency Director Adm. Michael Rogers refused to answer direct questions as to whether they had been asked by President Donald Trump to interfere with the FBI investigation into the Trump campaign’s connections with Russia.

snip//

This is outrageous. Congress has an independent obligation to conduct oversight. Witnesses cannot simply decide they don’t want to share. If they could, there would be no oversight.

While they were not under subpoena, the behavior of those testifying yesterday was contemptuous and unprecedented. The committee has the option to subpoena witnesses, demand answers and then hold them in contempt if they decline to answer. (Is that what the witnesses are hoping for, so they will be seen as having no choice?) It is hard to see any reason why Congress should not do so.

A source familiar with his thinking told me, “Sen. Heinrich will seek to get answers one way or another.”

Should Republicans not take these steps, the conclusion should be obvious: They are acting to protect the president from public embarrassment. In doing so, they are demonstrating a lack of respect both for the public and Congress, a branch of government co-equal to the executive.

All of these witnesses and other White House officials act as if they work for the president, not the American people. This is unacceptable in a functional democracy and would, if perpetuated, do serious damage to our democratic system.

They need to tell the truth, the whole truth. Transparency and honesty cannot be optional for members of the executive branch.

[C_U_L8R]

15. Total bullshit

And if Republicans don't do anything about it... it may come back to bite them in the ass.

[NightWatcher]

17. They don't want to go on the record because trump will lie and hang them out to dry.

Everyone knows trump will lie and if they go on record, he'll contradict them and ruin their reputation.

[Purrfessor]

18. This would mean no president would ever have to claim executive privilege.

[Honeycombe8]

20. They handled him with kit gloves and let him get away w/crap like that. nt

[Blue Idaho]

22. ACLU needs to challenge this in court.

If any organization can turn this BS on its era - it's the ACLU. I'm off to donate (again!)

[TrollBuster9090]

23. Rogers: "I'm just not in the MOOD to testify today..."

"You can go fuck yourself. ...and I mean that in a totally non-contentious way..."