Did Jeff Sessions Speak to the Russian Ambassador About WikiLeaks DNC Emails? – Huffington Post

My latest Counter Propa article addresses how Democrats paved the way for Jeff Sessions to circumvent lying under oath. It also highlights the absurd groupthink regarding the uncertain narrative Russia hacked the election. Regarding Putins involvement with our election, New York Magazine states The CIA and FBI have high confidence in these findings, the NSA has moderate confidence.

Wait, theyre not certain?

Yet, millions of disheartened Democrats, unable to believe Trump could defeat Clinton without Russias help, accept wholeheartedly a story that even intelligence agencies (the same people informing us of Russian hacking) only have high confidence about; not certainty.

If you think WikiLeaks was part of a conspiracy uncovered by the FBI, then please do a word search for WikiLeaks or Julian Assange within the 13 page DHS and FBI Russian Hacking Report.

Funny how the same intelligence agencies claiming grandiose Russian hacking operations dont mention a word about WikiLeaks.

The disclaimer of this report is amusing and states The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within. DHS does not endorse any commercial product or service referenced in this advisory or otherwise.

No warranties of any kind, yet the same Democratic strategists angered that people know Bernie was cheated have championed the belief Russia absolutely hacked the DNC.

First, lets get a couple of things straight about Jeff Sessions.

I dont care if hes forced to resign. I did care about General Michael Flynn being forced to resign, because he did nothing wrong.

Furthermore, Democrats dont care about lying politicians. If they did value honesty, the DNC wouldnt have cheated Bernie Sanders for Clinton and the Clinton campaign wouldnt have elevated Trump.

Always remember, Clintons campaign elevated Donald Trump.

Sessions did lie to Congress, although perjury requires intent. Have fun, Democrats, you set the stage for all of this with Clintons lies under oath. Law Newz explains why simply lying under oath doesnt mean youll get charged with perjury:

Therefore, when people ask me to stop discussing Hillary Clinton, the legacy of her endless controversies are just as relevant today as they were during the election.

Sessions told the Senate he had no contact with the Russians but he could easily say (taking a page from Clintons dossier) he was referring to the Russians in unverified reports read by Al Franken. Heres the exact quote used by Democrats to prove perjury:

Every top Democrat, the same politicians who vehemently defended Clintons erroneous statements, see a clear-cut lie in the words of Jeff sessions. However, as Law Newz and Hillary Clintons entire career point out, Sessions has a million ways to deny overtly lying to Congress.

See? He never said he didnt meet a Russian official. He clarified that he didnt meet Russian officials to discuss issues of the campaign. His denial relates specifically to the unverified reports read by Senator Franken.

Sessions met with Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, but like Clinton, he could simply say he didnt know Franken meant even a Russian ambassador would constitute the Russians who have dirt on Trump.

Most importantly, this story isnt about perjury.

Its about Americas intelligence community unable to say with certainty that Russians hacked the DNC and the Clinton Campaign.

Sorry, high confidence does not mean certain or 100% confident.

Everything from Russia sanctions to a neo-McCarthy Democratic Party is fueled by high confidence Russia hacked the DNC.

If somebody told you they were highly confident youd live through the day, its doubtful youd have a very good day.

As for nefarious Russian hackers, the DNC has never allowed its computer servers to be analyzed by the FBI.

It doesnt matter how many intelligence agencies are highly confident in a theory, this level of confidence isnt certainty.

In addition, WikiLeaks categorically denies any involvement with Russian state actors.

As for The Washington Post, much of its reporting comes from anonymous leaks.

Targeting Sessions is also about finding a scapegoat for Hillary Clintons $1.2 billion loss to Trump.

Therefore, lets discuss one possible scenario that Democrats have in their minds at the moment. In the mind of Keith Olbermann, Jeff Sessions speaks to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak about DNC emails that could help Trump in the election. These emails within the DNC lead to the following POLITICO article:

Jeff Sessions, in the daydreams of Al Franken, helps Russia destroy the DNC. Progressives are angry that Bernie Sanders was cheated and the knowledge WikiLeaks exposes hands the presidency to Trump.

Does this sound plausible?

Of course not, and if it does, make sure to give a big donation to Tom Perez and the DNC.

Then theres the viewpoint Jeff Sessions (or any Trump surrogate speaking to a dastardly Russian) must have been discussing Trumps business ties with Russian oligarchs. The only problem with this theory is that before the election, The New York Times published a piece titled Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia:

Before the election, the FBI already investigated Trump and found nothing in terms of dangerous Russian connections. The New York Times writes none of the investigations so far have found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government.

Yes, Jeff Sessions spoke to the Russian ambassador.

And theres no there, there. Remember that wonderful phrase?

I give my viewpoint on this latest controversy in the following H. A. Goodman YouTube segment.

Have fun trying to pin perjury charges on Sessions after Loretta Lynch stated she met with Bill Clinton to discuss golf, Brexit and grandchildren. She wasnt under oath, but its an example of another attorney general lying.

Sessions spoke to the Russian ambassador, yes. But do you think he was part of the DNC hack, or leak?

Do you think Sessions helped Russian hackers breach the impenetrable Podesta campaign?

Or is this about truth, honesty and the rule of law? Democrats now say its wrong to lie under oath. If so, remember when Hillary Clinton wasnt charged under the Espionage Act because of intent?

We could have had President Bernie Sanders had Comey found intent. Sadly, Democrats didnt listen in 2015 when I explained Why Sanders defeats Trump, but Trump defeats Clinton. I wrote this Hill article, by the way, long before DNC and Podesta emails. There were enough reasons in 2015 to see why Clinton would lose to Trump; Russia wasnt one of them.

Now we have a highly confident narrative that Russia hacked the election for Trump.

The state of American politics is abysmal and this latest quagmire will bring out yet another bizarre version of Democratic nationalism. Russia will be the scapegoat, and Sessions and Trump the Russian stooges, with Democrats ironically claiming that lying under oath is a serious crime.

Sessions and Flynn should have just approved the sale of 20% of U.S. uranium capacity to Russia, then Democrats would have found no link to Putin. Just imagine if Trump approved a deal that sent this uranium to Russia, as his foundation received cash from Uranium One; exactly what happened with Clinton.

Establishment Democrats still have trouble comprehending a New York Times piece titled Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal.

The next chapter of our new McCarthy era will undoubtedly reveal new revelations about Sessions, Democrats, and what a frightened liberal electorate is willing to believe. Just remember, always remember, we could have had President Bernie Sanders. But the same Democrats blaming Russia preferred Clinton and believed Sanders was either too extreme, or unrealistic.

H. A. Goodman is the creator of Counter Propa and the thoughts above are inspired by his new publication. Follow Counter Propa on Twitter and Facebook

Link:
Did Jeff Sessions Speak to the Russian Ambassador About WikiLeaks DNC Emails? - Huffington Post