Leahy's pathetic play: Way back when, the Chicago police couldn't get Al Capone for his actual crimes, including the Saint Valentine's Day massacre.
So the feds nailed him on a tax evasion rap! To this day, it's a famous play.
In our view, the modern-day Democratic Party is involved in similar conduct. We've increasingly shown that we can't win elections or convince the public concerning our basic beliefs. So we pray instead for the chance to get our rivals locked up.
We pray for scandal, for more Watergates, for Republicans to be caught in sex scandals involving congressional pages,as in the glorious year 2006. Given the gerontocracy running the party, it's our only way.
This produced an embarrassing moment on CNN today. The party is looking for a way to create a Trump scandal. Spirits soared when the story broke about Jeff Sessions last night.
Yay yay yay yay yay yay yay yay yay yay yay yay yay! This new report in the Washington Post gave Democrats a chance to say that Sessions lied in the course of his confirmation hearing. Yay yay yay yay yay yay yay! Perhaps we can get him on that!
Is it true? Did Sessions lie in his confirmation hearing?
It's certainly possible—but then again, everything is. In the case of a verbal exchange with Al Franken, we'd say the claim is currently pretty slender. (Your lizard brain will tell you different. Your lizard is constantly wrong.)
In the case of a later, written exchange with Leahy, there's no current claim at all.
What the heck did Leahy ask Sessions? Below, you see the text of the written question from Leahy, along with Sessions' one-word written reply:
LEAHY: Several of the President-elect’s nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?As you and every sane person can see, Sessions was specifically asked if he had spoken to any Russkies "about the 2016 election." In his written reply, he said that he had not.
Like almost everyone else on the planet, we have no way of knowing whether that statement is accurate. But at present, there is zero evidence supporting the claim that Sessions' statement was false.
In September 2016, Sessions had a private meeting in his office with the Russian ambassador. Earlier, at the Republican Convention, Sessions had briefly spoken to the Russian ambassador after giving a speech at an event where something like twenty other ambassadors were present.
Did they speak about the election? Everything's possible, but at present, there's zero evidence that they did. At present, there is zero evidence that Sessions' reply to Leahy was false.
Unless you speak to the doddering Leahy! This morning, we caught his embarrassing effort on CNN, near the end of the 10 o'clock hour.
Leahy spoke with CNN co-hosts John Berman and Poppy Harlow. Here's what happened when the bumbling gerontocrat pretended to discuss the written question he submitted to Sessions:
LEAHY (3/2/17): I asked a very, very specific question. I think, you know, you've— You have had it—He thought his question was very clear! For the full transcript, click here.
HARLOW: Yes, we have it. We'll pull it up.
LEAHY: And—but what I said in it, I said, asking him about it, remember, now, these answers are under oath, under oath, and I said, "Did you have any contact, either before or after Election Day?" I thought my question was very clear. His answer is very clear. He said "No." Well, that's not what happened. And I think this raises questions.
Uh-oh! You'll note that Leahy offered an "edited" version of what he had actually asked. To his credit, Berman called him on it—and Leahy embarrassed himself further:
BERMAN (continuing directly): You asked him— Senator, just to be clear, you asked him if he had contact before or after the election "about the 2016 election." To that he answered "no." So does that give him wiggle room because he could say he met—Are we really "all grown-ups here?" Or are some of our hapless leaders really gerontocrats?
BERMAN: OK, why?
LEAHY: It doesn't because one of those was at the Republican National Convention when he, when he met with the Russians. Gosh, what did they talk about? "Hey, gee, the food is really great here?" Come on. We're all grown-ups here. "Well, Senator—"
To his credit, Berman reminded Leahy of what he had actually asked. We'd only criticize Berman for using the suggestive term, "wiggle room," as he discussed a reply by Sessions which may well be perfectly accurate.
At that point, Leahy began clowning about what Sessions surely must have said during that brief discussion at the Republican Convention. Watching live, we were surprised, but not surprised, by Leahy's disingenuous presentation. Once again, to their credit, the CNN pair pushed back:
BERMAN (continuing directly): Well, there are ambassadors—ambassadors always go to conventions, senator.We'd say that Leahy embarrassed himself. We'd also say that this recalls the chase after Al Capone.
HARLOW: And this was a big gathering. Now, because they met on the grounds, it was a Heritage Foundation event at the convention, doesn't necessarily mean they talked about it.
Why do we speak of "gerontocrats?" A few weeks ago, we had the misfortune of seeing the Democratic House leadership, three million strong, stumble through a horrible press event at which Reps. Cummings and Pelosi recited a fake tweet which they mistakenly thought had come from Michael Flynn.
(Note: The fake tweet had appeared beneath this bold header: "Not Michael Flynn." Even that hint wasn't enough for the party's top sleuths. For details, just click here.)
Cummings is no gerontocrat; others that day plainly were. It was a horrible press event, capped by Pelosi's unwatchable explanation of what the word "scapegoat" originally meant, long ago, on some unnamed Greek isle.
It was an unwatchable presser. Even on a dull news day, the cables quickly fled. Conservatives have heard about the way our team swallowed the "Not Michael Flynn" fake tweet. Over Here in our liberal tents, we have of course been shielded from such knowledge.
This morning, we saw another senator-for-life embarrass himself on CNN. They don't know how to win elections or debates. They're praying for scandal instead.
That's exactly the problem: Later in the CNN session, Leahy was asked if he thought that Sessions had lied to Al Franken during his hearing.
At present, we'd say the complaint is extremely thin. But so what? Here's what Leahy said:
"You know, I was a prosecutor. I would not have accepted that answer."
That's exactly the problem, we flawlessly thought. The other problem lies in the fact that the nation's more liberal party lies in the hands of a gang of increasingly hapless gerontocrats.
They haven't won a debate for years. They're forced to pray for sex with pages or some other form of disgrace.