So umm... Sessions was put under investigation by McCabe Last Year

[Jimmy Higgins]

link

Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe authorized an investigation into Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ alleged lack of candor during congressional testimony over his contacts with Russian operatives last year, a source with knowledge of the matter confirmed to HuffPost.

ABC News first reported that Sessions had been under investigation, and that the attorney general was unaware of the probe when he fired McCabe for the FBI official’s own alleged lack of candor during an internal review of how the bureau and Justice Department handled investigations into Hillary Clinton during the 2016 campaign.

This stuff just doesn't stop getting deeper.

 

[braces_for_impact]

It just goes to show what an incredible clusterfuck this entire administration really is. The Attorney General of the United States under investigation for perjury. I actually find it at least a little more respectable that Sessions wasn't given an automatic pass. He lied his ass off before Congress. Shameful.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It just goes to show what an incredible clusterfuck this entire administration really is. The Attorney General of the United States under investigation for perjury. I actually find it at least a little more respectable that Sessions wasn't given an automatic pass. He lied his ass off before Congress. Shameful.

But, on the bright side, McCabe's replacement isn't going to give Sessions too much shit about his perjury. Object lessons work.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The simplest method of determining how deep it all goes is to understand that these guys always accuse others of their own crimes. It’s so routine and transparent that anyone with half a brain can see it, but the beauty is that it works. It doesn’t matter that intelligent people (i.e., Democrats) can see right through it; Republicans (as in citizens) never can and we’re all left staring

So, for example, when they talk about the “deep state” they are in fact referring to themselves. When they say, “There was no collusion” there was in fact massive collusion. Etc. Basically anything that is denied is thereby true and the level of vehemence of the denial is directly proportional to how deep the hole.

 

[Elixir]

So, for example, when they talk about the “deep state” they are in fact referring to themselves.

Indeed! Mercers, Kochs - the actual "Deep State" is the handful of rogue oligarchs manipulating the electoral system, and running amok on the fuel of Citizens United.
It's never going to stop until and unless C.U. is somehow overturned, repealed or otherwise negated. And that's a tall order, having been enshrined by a misguided SCOTUS.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The simplest method of determining how deep it all goes is to understand that these guys always accuse others of their own crimes. It’s so routine and transparent that anyone with half a brain can see it, but the beauty is that it works. It doesn’t matter that intelligent people (i.e., Democrats) can see right through it; Republicans (as in citizens) never can and we’re all left staring

So, for example, when they talk about the “deep state” they are in fact referring to themselves. When they say, “There was no collusion” there was in fact massive collusion. Etc. Basically anything that is denied is thereby true and the level of vehemence of the denial is directly proportional to how deep the hole.

It's kinda like Jimmy Swaggart admonishing someone over their lack of morality when it comes to prostitutes.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The simplest method of determining how deep it all goes is to understand that these guys always accuse others of their own crimes. It’s so routine and transparent that anyone with half a brain can see it, but the beauty is that it works. It doesn’t matter that intelligent people (i.e., Democrats) can see right through it; Republicans (as in citizens) never can and we’re all left staring

So, for example, when they talk about the “deep state” they are in fact referring to themselves. When they say, “There was no collusion” there was in fact massive collusion. Etc. Basically anything that is denied is thereby true and the level of vehemence of the denial is directly proportional to how deep the hole.

It's kinda like Jimmy Swaggart admonishing someone over their lack of morality when it comes to prostitutes.

Or every single staunchly anti-gay Republican who then gets caught in an all-male gangbang in a public toilet off route 78.

 

[Malintent]

... gives whole new meaning to the phrase, "a bunch of fuckturds".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The simplest method of determining how deep it all goes is to understand that these guys always accuse others of their own crimes. It’s so routine and transparent that anyone with half a brain can see it, but the beauty is that it works. It doesn’t matter that intelligent people (i.e., Democrats) can see right through it; Republicans (as in citizens) never can and we’re all left staring

So, for example, when they talk about the “deep state” they are in fact referring to themselves. When they say, “There was no collusion” there was in fact massive collusion. Etc. Basically anything that is denied is thereby true and the level of vehemence of the denial is directly proportional to how deep the hole.

The problem with this approach is that it makes it impossible to defend against a false allegation.

I'm reminded of a woman I used to know who was diagnosed as an alcoholic despite being a teetotaler. The problem was one question: "Have you ever lost friends due to alcohol?". Once she answered yes to that all her objections were treated as being in denial. (What happened is the question doesn't say whose alcohol use. She had lost friends because they had become alcoholics.)

 

[Elixir]

The simplest method of determining how deep it all goes is to understand that these guys always accuse others of their own crimes. It’s so routine and transparent that anyone with half a brain can see it, but the beauty is that it works. It doesn’t matter that intelligent people (i.e., Democrats) can see right through it; Republicans (as in citizens) never can and we’re all left staring

So, for example, when they talk about the “deep state” they are in fact referring to themselves. When they say, “There was no collusion” there was in fact massive collusion. Etc. Basically anything that is denied is thereby true and the level of vehemence of the denial is directly proportional to how deep the hole.

The problem with this approach is that it makes it impossible to defend against a false allegation.

I'm reminded of a woman I used to know who was diagnosed as an alcoholic despite being a teetotaler. The problem was one question: "Have you ever lost friends due to alcohol?". Once she answered yes to that all her objections were treated as being in denial. (What happened is the question doesn't say whose alcohol use. She had lost friends because they had become alcoholics.)

The problem there is the diagnostician - and the woman's naiveté in dealing with them. I got caught with a joint way back in the day, and had to attend a "rehab" group full of alkies. As soon as they asked how many drinks I habitually consumed, I knew there was only one right answer - "a lot". But at the time I literally NEVER drank. So I hemmed and hawed and finally said I had 6-8 drinks a week. They gave me a lot of tools to help me cut down on my drinking, so the next week I proudly announced that I had had only four drinks. The following week was the last session, so I told them I had actually not had a single drink the previous week. They gladly signed off on my case, proud as peacocks about the effectiveness of their program.
But Koy (and Oppoponax and others) is absolutely right about the Cheato cabal - they ALWAYS accuse others of whatever crimes they have done - and even the crimes they intend to do. Totally transparent to virtually anyone who is not autistic, or a republican.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The simplest method of determining how deep it all goes is to understand that these guys always accuse others of their own crimes. It’s so routine and transparent that anyone with half a brain can see it, but the beauty is that it works. It doesn’t matter that intelligent people (i.e., Democrats) can see right through it; Republicans (as in citizens) never can and we’re all left staring

So, for example, when they talk about the “deep state” they are in fact referring to themselves. When they say, “There was no collusion” there was in fact massive collusion. Etc. Basically anything that is denied is thereby true and the level of vehemence of the denial is directly proportional to how deep the hole.

The problem with this approach is that it makes it impossible to defend against a false allegation.

I disagree, but regardless, whose fault is that? The Republican who constantly cries wolf when there are none can't then whine when an actual wolf attacks and no one believes him.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem with this approach is that it makes it impossible to defend against a false allegation.

I'm reminded of a woman I used to know who was diagnosed as an alcoholic despite being a teetotaler. The problem was one question: "Have you ever lost friends due to alcohol?". Once she answered yes to that all her objections were treated as being in denial. (What happened is the question doesn't say whose alcohol use. She had lost friends because they had become alcoholics.)

The problem there is the diagnostician - and the woman's naiveté in dealing with them. I got caught with a joint way back in the day, and had to attend a "rehab" group full of alkies. As soon as they asked how many drinks I habitually consumed, I knew there was only one right answer - "a lot". But at the time I literally NEVER drank. So I hemmed and hawed and finally said I had 6-8 drinks a week. They gave me a lot of tools to help me cut down on my drinking, so the next week I proudly announced that I had had only four drinks. The following week was the last session, so I told them I had actually not had a single drink the previous week. They gladly signed off on my case, proud as peacocks about the effectiveness of their program.
But Koy (and Oppoponax and others) is absolutely right about the Cheato cabal - they ALWAYS accuse others of whatever crimes they have done - and even the crimes they intend to do. Totally transparent to virtually anyone who is not autistic, or a republican.

Yeah, she was naive about such things, although it did finally get straightened out when she figured out why they originally thought she was an alcoholic.

I do agree that they accuse others of doing what they do--but this isn't proof they are doing it.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The problem with this approach is that it makes it impossible to defend against a false allegation.

I disagree

How so? How can they defend against a false allegation if we accept your claim?

 

[Malintent]

The problem with this approach is that it makes it impossible to defend against a false allegation.

I disagree

How so? How can they defend against a false allegation if we accept your claim?

I read that as the disagreement is with the problem being described as "the approach", rather than with being "the behavior".

I also disagree that the "problem" is that they can't defend themselves... sure, that would be the problem they create for themselves. However, that is not the problem with "not trusting those that constantly lie".

I really don't spend much time worrying (or finding a problem with) ignoring the raving lunatic on the side of the street because maybe, just maybe, aliens really have taken over the planet. That guy may find it a problem for him that no one believes him, but no one feels it is a problem that he might be right and we aren't listening.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The simplest method of determining how deep it all goes is to understand that these guys always accuse others of their own crimes. It’s so routine and transparent that anyone with half a brain can see it, but the beauty is that it works. It doesn’t matter that intelligent people (i.e., Democrats) can see right through it; Republicans (as in citizens) never can and we’re all left staring

So, for example, when they talk about the “deep state” they are in fact referring to themselves. When they say, “There was no collusion” there was in fact massive collusion. Etc. Basically anything that is denied is thereby true and the level of vehemence of the denial is directly proportional to how deep the hole.

The problem with this approach is that it makes it impossible to defend against a false allegation.

I'm reminded of a woman I used to know who was diagnosed as an alcoholic despite being a teetotaler. The problem was one question: "Have you ever lost friends due to alcohol?". Once she answered yes to that all her objections were treated as being in denial. (What happened is the question doesn't say whose alcohol use. She had lost friends because they had become alcoholics.)

I like stories.

 

[Underseer]

link

Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe authorized an investigation into Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ alleged lack of candor during congressional testimony over his contacts with Russian operatives last year, a source with knowledge of the matter confirmed to HuffPost.

ABC News first reported that Sessions had been under investigation, and that the attorney general was unaware of the probe when he fired McCabe for the FBI official’s own alleged lack of candor during an internal review of how the bureau and Justice Department handled investigations into Hillary Clinton during the 2016 campaign.

This stuff just doesn't stop getting deeper.

Let's talk about Hillary Clinton instead! Benghazi proves that she is a traitor who was working with the Muslims! [/conservolibertarian]