What do you think of the so-called revelation that Jeff Session met with the Russians and then lied to Congress about it?
This is obviously more fake news from the left-wing media.
I saw that! He actually spoke with the ambassador at some kind of ambassadorial meeting of many ambassadors from all over. I'm also seeing where such a despicable act was treason and he needs jailed.
"The Justice Department said late Wednesday that one of the discussions between Sessions and Sergey Kislyak was an office visit that occurred in Sessions' capacity as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The second conversation took place in a group setting with other ambassadors following a Heritage Foundation speech."
Of course, Sessions never denied speaking to a Russian: "...Sessions said, "I never met with any Russian officials to discuss issues of the campaign.". Almost seems like the whole thing is being blown just a wee bit out of proportion, doesn't it?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03 … paign.html
Jeff Sessions [under oath]: "I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it" (Jan 10, 2017).
Timeline of events:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pol … e3fd90a15f
Fascinating. Wonder which one, or both, are true.
From a legal perspective, the statement that matters is the one given under oath ("I did not have communications with the Russians") as that's the one that is potentially a case of perjury (he allegedly did have communications with the Russians). Whether he spoke about the campaign or not is irrelevant, as that's not the question he was asked under oath.
Yes, that's the one that will likely matter. Then the question becomes one of meaning and context.
"“there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.”
Did he answer in the context of being a Trump surrogate or intermediary and exchange information in that capacity? Up to the jury, isn't it?
Or should we all assume that context doesn't matter, actual meaning doesn't matter and hang him because we don't like him?
The exact quote is: "I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it", which indicates he is answering in the context of being a Trump surrogate.
But you're absolutely right. It is for a jury to decide whether he committed perjury.
It is also absolutely right that the matter is investigated, and based on the results of that investigation, a decision made as to whether he be prosecuted for perjury.
A lawyer, a former DA, laughed at all this, and said: "none of it would stand up in court... but in D.C. the criminals run the investigations so anything is possible."
I think he summed it up nicely.
If that is the outcome of an investigation, so be it, but it is right for the matter to be investigated, and it is right for Sessions to recuse himself from that investigation, or any related to it.
Absolutely... there were a few investigations thrown Obama's way, so its no surprise that the opposition is more than ready to go on anything they can against Trump's people... who only had to say 'yeah, I met with them, so what?' when they were asked... sadly this does nothing for the American people. Just politicians playing their games and stalling on getting things done... and the ones who suffer for it are the millions of Americans that need these fools to make decisions on the ACA and taxes and so much else.
Within the wider context of Russian hacking, attempts to influence the election, personal connections between numerous Trump campaign staff and the Russians, the National Security Advisor being compromised by the Russians, the issue of Russian sanctions etc., I think this is quite a bit more than just political point-scoring.
Ted Kennedy met and begged the Russians in attempts to defeat Reagan , No issue their though - right ?
Stop with the fake news already.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/st … -door-lin/
You're right, look, here is a pic of Trump meeting with Putin.
"Happily talk re: my contact w Mr. Putin & his associates, took place in '03 in full view of press & public under oath. Would you & your team?
— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) March 3, 2017
Sounds like a good idea. Would Trump and his aides like to testify under oath about their contact with Russian intelligence, and state officials? I suspect not.
"It is also absolutely right that the matter is investigated, and based on the results of that investigation, a decision made as to whether he be prosecuted for perjury."
I thought Clinton established very well that perjury before congress was quite acceptable? Although it will appease some to spend a few millions of taxpayer dollars to embarrass their political opponent. I swear, after the Clinton fiasco there isn't much of a reason to "investigate" our politicians at all!
Yes, that's kind of how I read it - he's answering in the context of being a surrogate, not a senator. And if true, then the statement is apparently true as well.
Hang him because we don't like him? It's not like we've never seen that before.
I have no idea about this particular piece of information, but I'm curious, how do you tell the difference between fake news and real news? Is it just that you've made up your mind one group is honest and the other is lying, and how can you be so certain?
Sometimes the 'fake news' is easy to spot...
I know I fall back on this one too often, but it is because it is the most obvious... when the MSM went ahead and pushed the Benghazi/Riots being caused by a 'youtube' video that was 'fake news' or rather, that was the MSM pushing a lie for the establishment.
50 years ago, there would have been reporters tearing into that lie and exposing it for it was. And they would have exposed the shipment of weapons sent to the Muslim Brotherhood and other rebels in Syria.
Maybe not... maybe the went after Nixon because he was a Republican, maybe they dug into Iran - Contra because Reagan was a Republican, maybe they are hell bent to destroy Trump because he is a Republican.
In which case, the question remains, who to believe and why.
What all this has been about, Flynn, Sessions, and everyone else they are trying to tag with this... well what can I say except this gives a ton of credibility that there is some form of 'shadow government' or 'deep state' at work here trying to undermine Trump and his administration.
Once again, what is Trump first and foremost... he is the ANTI-Establishment President, he is not part of the inner-click, he is not someone they can just throw a hundred million dollars at and buy off. He is not an 'establishment' politician and therefore he is a threat.
Trump most likely believes having been elected President that he is in charge, that he is there to do the people's bidding... that's a nice sentiment, but that type of President/Government died with Woodrow Wilson when he betrayed the Nation, the People, and the Constitution by signing into law the Federal Reserve Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Sixteenth Amendment, the Revenue Act, Sedition Act, Segregation, WWI etc. he was a one man wrecking crew supported by the most corrupt people alive at that time, literally the roots of everything you probably hate about our government today can be laid at Wilson's feet... he did more to strip the rights of Americans away and create a bank controlled one-world system of masters and slaves than any man in America's history.
Sorry for getting off track... so anyways, it is interesting that SOMEONE is doing everything possible to disrupt Trump's administration, pulling strings everywhere... from Federal Judges to Senators to the FBI.
Reminds me in many ways of the struggles Kennedy had against the 'establishment', the FBI, CIA, and Military Complex, and how when they found they couldn't control him... well...
Clueless aren't you?
We are in the midst of a 'civil war' so to speak between the MSM + D.C. Establishment and their owners/controllers VS the people... the wave of ant-establishment grows every year, in large part because everyone can communicate and learn facts without the media or political parties.
But don't take my word for it... I realize many either support the 'establishment' because they are doing well with it, while others are unable to discern what is really going on, and are happy having their reality spoonfed to them by the likes of CNN and NY Times.
So here, let the NY Times tell you a bit about it:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/02/opin … cracy.html
Now... the only mistake is they want to use this insight to lay blame on Russians, to ignore the truth of what they are saying... that people have the means to talk to one another in mass on the internet, and they can see for themselves what is going on, by Search, by YouTube, so when the MSM lies to them about something, or tells a falsehood, it is almost immediately found out... something that used to take weeks, months, sometime never to be uncovered is disproved overnight now.
The Politicians the ones that have been in Washington for decades, are totally out of touch with their constituency, they are totally out of touch with how todays technology makes them incapable of escaping scrutiny.
Politicians like Pelosi, Waters, McCain, are exposed for being out of touch, and uncaring of the needs and interests of Americans... for them its all politics and corruption and they all need to be removed from D.C.
I am pleased to see he recused himself, it will save him from further persecution? General Sessions met with the ambassador in an official capacity as a member of the "Senate Armed Services Committee", which is entirely consistent with his testimony, and his job at the time of the meeting. I hope all the nay Sayers will consider that this before smearing him.
Anyone who colludes with Russia to put Trump in the White House is a traitor.
Anyone who defends and supports the above also is a traitor.
Where is the proof?
Obama met with the Russians constantly, was he a traitor?
The meetings with Flynn occurred AFTER Trump was already elected President, but not yet sworn in, was he a traitor?
What about China? When the Clintons were funded by Chinese businessmen (and still are, as well as the Royal Saudi family) are they traitors for taking the money? What about Clinton selling Uranium to the Russians?
This is, and always has been a witch hunt to undermine not just Trump, but the anti-establishment movement that put him into office. These corrupt politicians, and the various factions paying them and making them mega-millionaires, are fighting for their lives... the RNC and DNC is fighting for relevancy... they are trying to regain control of populace by convincing them that Trump is the most evil and vile human being alive, and that he and all his aids are Russian traitors.
Do you ever open your mind up and think?
Why are the Russians suddenly these big bad villains?
Because they exposed some Clinton emails, and let Americans get a glimpse about what she and her campaign were really all about?
Are we supposed to do what the Democrats are suggesting now and go to war with Russia?
Are you truly wishing for the total break down of the American government, and for anarchy and chaos to rule in the street?
Do you think Trump supporters are going to sit back and accept Trump being dragged out of the Presidency anymore than Obama supporters would have sat back and accepted his being thrown out?
Do you think Trump supporters are going to believe he is a Russian conspirator anymore than Obama supporters believed he was not an American, and a Muslim conspirator?
There would be no less of a reaction of total upheaval and violence if Trump is wrongly removed than if Obama was... unless you convince more than 90% of the country that a President is rightfully being removed... not 40% not 50%... 90% or more,,, then you are inviting civil unrest.
"Elections have consequences"... Trump and his aids can be removed in 2020 by election... and not sooner.
See from MY perspective, anyone that doesn't support the President, whether they like him or not, whether they believe him to be a Muslim Manchurian Candidate or a Russian Conspirator is a Traitor... the Democrats in Congress, their actions are traitorous, they are colluding against the lawfully elected Executive, they are conspiring against the best interests of all Americans by willfully and wantonly undermining the American government, and its President.
If they were all impeached and thrown out of office, Pelosi, Schumer, Waters, etc. I would 100% support such an action.
So to you, I am a traitor for supporting Trump... and to me you are a traitor because you do not.
I am an ex-Army Ranger... if the call went out... I'd pick up my Rifle, my pistols and defend the lawfully elected President, and I would be just one of millions... if the Democrats and their ilk want to push it that far... how far are you willing to go to defend what you believe?
First of all, I didn't say anyone colluded with Russia. I just said collusion was treason. Are you saying it's not treason as long as your guy gets the White House?
Second, comparing meetings between Obama and Russians during Obama's presidency with Trump campaign aides meeting with them during the campaign is way beyond comparing apples and oranges.
Yes, you are a traitor if you support collusion with Russians to get Trump in the White House. No, you aren't a traitor if you simply support Trump.
You have so many other inaccurate attacks on me that they aren't worthy of a response.
Both Pelosi and McCaskill who have pushed the matter on Sessions, and had stated they themselves never met with the Russian Ambassador, are now being shown to have lied about the matter... they met with the Russian Ambassador in the same capacity as Sessions had, so if he was colluding with Russians, so were they.
Second, on Obama meeting with Russians not being the same, I am sure you are aware of the infamous clip where Obama said to Medvedev during a hot mike incident "This is my last election. After my election I will have more flexibility..." Sessions meeting with a Russian Ambassador while a Senator and in pursuit of his duties as such, and Obama meeting with Medvedev in pursuit of his duties as President... its all the same.
I don't have any other innacurate attacks on you, I only had questions... other than the 'traitor' issue being couched in a way to get you to see another perspective in hopes to get you considering ramifications or alternative viewpoints... Sessions, nor anyone else in the Trump Administration is any more guilty of 'treason' with the Russians than Obama or Clinton (selling of Uranium and other issues aside)... at least there is no PROOF of such being given by anyone.
So until there is concrete, serious, evidence of such... the actions being taken now by Pelosi, Watters, etc. is what I would call treasonous, and certainly impeachment worthy, for reasons noted above in previous posts.
Sessions meeting with the Russians as a top campaign aide to Trump is not even close to Obama meeting with Russians as president. Not to mention the five other campaign aides who now admit to meeting with them.
Sessions is not guilty of collusion? How do you know? Do you have access to him that the rest of us don't?
I understand why you would defend the guy you voted for. But denying reality is exactly what Trump and the Russians want from American voters.
I'm not defending the guy... I am making every effort to expose the corruption in D.C. ... Trump the outsider, the 'drain the swamp' candidate, has walked into a minefield of opposition.
Until there is irrefutable proof given, that there was direct effort in conjuction with the Russians to steal an election, by means of voter fraud, or something else as serious... I don't give a crap who met whom as Senator, or who made a phone call... that means nothing to me... its all BS, unsubstantiated BS.
And most likely those who voted for Trump, and many who didn't could care less as well.
Then I will ask these questions with respect. Why did all of those campaign aides meet with the Russians at all? Why did they meet in secret? Did they not understand the risk of how the meetings would be perceived?
This is something that will get fleshed out.
And now we have the Obama wiretaps and server hacking that will be looked into.
And now we also have a Loretta Lynch video, being featured on the Official U.S. Senate Democrats facebook page that is calling out for civil unrest and violence.
Looks like things just got pushed to the point where SOMEONE and likely MANY someone's are going to be publicly flayed as traitors to the Nation.
With leaders like Pelosi, Watters, Warren leading the brilliant and oh so well articulated charge from one side ... and Trump and his Admin on the other...
This shouldn't come as a surprise... as I keep telling you... this is the anti-establishment 'drain the swamp' candidate/movement (not Republican or Conservative) ... as much as you might find Trump distasteful, it isn't really about him, its about more than 60 million Americans saying 'we've had enough' that put him in office to take down the corrupt and criminal politicians that have been in there for DECADES screwing over the American people every chance they got.
Either describe the swamp in a meaningful way or spare us the cliches.
What is it? What does it do? Who is it ? Some names would help.
This whole 'drain the swamp' language is so emotional, so appealing to conspiracy freaks and so utterly meaningless like every other slogan/jingle/excuse for thinking straight.
Except it is more than that. It is actually an attack on your democracy and the various branches of elected government. And if you trash it. You need an alternative.
So, details of the swamp plus alternatives to democracy or spare the universe of your nonsense.
I've given plenty... sorry that you have come late to the party and have an inability to read past posts and hubs... your deficiency is not my problem.
Expand your repertoire, store these away for later:
Let 100 flowers bloom
Eat the Rich
Life Tastes Good
Every Man a King
Heim ins Reich
Smash the gang of four
It’s the cola
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
Taste the Feeling
Did I miss the post where everyone agreed it was not fake news, and the two meetings with the ambassador totally happened?
Hold on a minute Will Aspe, (sorry for butting in), I think you are more than a bit off-base with questioning the "drain the swamp" chorus.
I would venture that Americans of all stripes, liberal, conservative, Independent, Democrat, or Republican, understand exactly what drain the swamp means. I would further venture that all, except maybe the Far Left, would agree that that swamp does need draining. As Americans, too many of us, again of all stripes, are extremely frustrated with our recent-memory politicians. In general that is. Of course we all think our particular state politicians are good guys. ;-)
So, I contend that "drain the swamp" is far from a meaningless "slogan/jingle/excuse." And I think it is more a derivative of our democracy than an attack on it.
... just say'n
Okay, you tell me what your version of the swamp is.
It is such a marvelous phrase to evoke feelings of unease and distrust. And disgust for that matter.
Also the swamps of the popular imagination are mysterious unknowable places wherein monsters, supernatural spirits and things that cannot be named dwell.
How about getting us back to the real world where stuff can be dealt with?
He admits himself that the meetings happened, so what is fake about the news?
It's fake because his supporters say it's fake. Everything is fake if it doesn't fit their view of the world.
How can it be a prosecutable offence for one diplomat to meet with another diplomat , unless in those meetings - secret deals like selling uranium to the Russians or selling missile guidance systems to the Chinese military , is a prosecutable offence [ The Clintons ] ? Perhaps an administration selling American guns to the Mexican drug cartels [ Obama ]is a normal diplomatic occurrence for liberals ?
See what I mean about the naiveté of liberal ideologies ,they have O political memory .
Why even argue with those who have no clue about political reality ?
Really? What is your political experience?
Mine includes multiple campaign work, a father who was a Republican official, a son who was a Republican aide and many other political activities. Please prove your political expertise.
It's not prosecutable for one diplomat to meet with another. However, it is perjury to say that "I never met with the Russians" when you did meet with the Russians while testifying under oath in front of Congress. Further, it may be prosecutable if it's proven that your trip to meet with said Russians was paid for by the Trump campaign.
Naïve , for one thing the Trump campaign paid for itself , unheard of on the left I know , two , I hope Sessions had met with the Russians or any government , It just proves the Trump administration "hit the ground running ".. Better open your eye's , it seems every member of the left , those making the allegations has met with the Russians also .
Fake News IS real.
In the early 1980's then Sen, Ted Kennedy privately INVITED the Russian government into a clandestine attempt to sabotage Ronald Reagans re-election campaign ! How shallow the memory of democrats love for ANY external conspiracies of the American electoral process !
Do democrats have ANY political memory muscle at all ?
Liberals "looking in haystacks for needles" should be happy that the administration is talking to the Russians , When diplomats stop being diplomatic , that's when things get nasty . Far be it though for todays liberals to understand either real diplomacy and real politics in general .
I love how Trump says certain media outlets are fake news, but then quotes directly from Fox News when it comes to Sweden. An outlet that puts a Swedish Security expert on who is unknown to swedish security experts: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world … 01506.html
You have to know that those Right Wing nut cases still believe in the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and that there's only one Santa who is White and has a Summer home in Alaska right? They're making Pinocchio appear amateurish with the steady flow of lies from "The Spice Man", and Kelly "Oneway".
If you are a congressman, part of your job is to meet with foreign ambassadors. The reason we have foreign ambassadors is so people can meet with them and talk to them. The whole idea that there is anything objectionable about any political figure's meeting with a Russian ambassador is utter horseshit.
The allegation is that Sessions lied under oath. If he did, that's perjury.
Perjury is a criminal offense.
If the allegation is true, then the whole idea that there is nothing objectionable about an attorney general committing a criminal offense is (to use your words) "utter horseshit".
They asked him under oath if he had met with the Russians in a capacity on behalf of the Trump campaign... he said no.
Sessions maintained Thursday that he didn't speak to the Russian official in his capacity as a surrogate of Trump's campaign but instead as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Unless they can produce proof (audio tape or such) that directly proves that he did act on behalf of Trump's campaign with the Russian this is total garbage.
He also said he had no "communications" with the Russians and then admitted that he did.
If Hillary Clinton had help from Russian intelligence to win the election, would you be just as supportive of her?
OK... look they asked him if he communicated with the Russians ON BEHALF OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN... is there some other questioning or reference you have other than that?
And please show proof that Russian Intelligence helped Trump win the election... show where they went out and changed votes, hacked computers to change the counts... something OTHER than they exposed Podesta's emails or the DNC's emails... I see nothing wrong with anyone, whether they are the NY Times or the Russian Intelligence exposing the TRUTH of what a candidate really thinks, or does.
Too bad that Podesta and Clinton had their emails hacked... and it was shown to the people that they had a low opinion of just about everyone, and were willing to screw over Bernie, Bernie supporters, the validity of the Democratic primary, that they were willing to accept questions in advanced of a debate... and that infact they expected such help from their media sources, etc. etc.
The Russian Intelligence, or WikiLeaks, or who-ever did American's a great service in doing so... they did the job that our News agencies used to do, are supposed to do... now those agencies are just a propaganda machine for the corrupt and criminal elites trying to enslave the majority of Americans to their version of what the world is supposed to be, and how it is supposed to work.
I can only prove that multiple Trump campaign aides met with the Russians. I can prove it because they admitted it.
It would be naive for anyone to think that they met just to share some vodka or swap stories about trout fishing during a presidential campaign.
Well wow... they met with Russian officials, so did Pelosi even though she denied it, and then had to retract that denial the other day... so did every other Senator in a position where such meetings would be considered part of the job.
But forget that stuff now... the news that the Obama Administration pushed the phone taps, hacking, etc. of Trump and his associates, despite being denied by FISA, through the use of the NSA, I mean... when all this shakes out the corruption of D.C. ... the DNC. Clintons, Obama, and all their stooges still in Congress is going to be so monumental, that no amount of covering-up by the media will help...
What WikiLeaks exposed on the Clintons will be nothing compared to this, no wonder they have been so desperate to take down Trump and all his staff before this could be dug up and exposed.
A great guy to listen to about this stuff and where it is going is Lionel.
Lord. Are you talking about Pelosi's 2010 meeting with the Russian ambassador during a year without a presidential campaign? How does that compare to six Trump campaign aides meeting with Russian spies?
Once again, where is your proof of Obama wiretapping other than Trump's Twitter account and Breitbart?
If you want specific facts, go search for them Google Search YouTube UK paper, Israel paper, whatever foreign flavor that suits your fancy.
Type in: "Obama FISA spies on Trump" on Search or YoutTube and enjoy what comes up.
One of the two sides will eventually win... the corrupt and criminal 'establishment' currently represented by Pelosi, Watters, McCain, you know, those politicians that have been sitting in Congress for over 20 years who are responsible for everything from NAFTA & Glass and Steagall act repeal 1999, to this current false accusations and obstructionism of the new President.
Look at Pelosi, she has been there almost 30 years.
In 2009, Pelosi reported a minimum net worth of $21.7 million.
Pelosi was worth at least $35.2 million in the 2010 calendar year
She reported a minimum of $43.4 million in assets in 2011.
Politics are GOOD for those Congressmen and women who stick around.
Trump wants to 'Drain the Swamp'... and the Swamp wants to drown Trump.
That is not what was asked. Sessions volunteered the information and simply said he did not meet with the Russians, which was a lie.
He was not acting as a congressman. He was representing the Trump campaign. It's an important difference.
What's fake about it? He met with the Russian Ambassador in a closed-door meeting and didn't disclose it during his confirmation hearing. So tell me why this is fake news.
You are quite right. Not only didn't he disclose it, but he also denied any communications with the Russians during the campaign.
And now we have six Trump campaign aides admitting they had contact with the Russians during the campaign. No doubt they just talked about the weather.
To mature political voters , who won hands down in this election , ALL Of the liberal crying and manipulation of the incredibly biased media -- Is but a last ditch effort of DNC whiners and losers . The last gasp of a entire ideology in its death throws .
" Everything after first place is last place !"
Pls pardon me for jumping in but I believe I may have some insight as to why many think that "drain the swamp" is a tired and impotent phrase. For one thing, it was presented as an innovative idea, when it is really a rehashing of an old slogan that had been rehashed by Ronald Reagan, but had actually been used as early as the beginning if the 20th century by anti-capitalism Socialists wanting to rid D.C. (which was built on a swamp, btw) of capitalists! Too funny. Still, many Trump supporters just love the chant. One, with an increasing following despite or perhaps because of his constant errors and mis-interpretations, even creditted Trump with "coining the phrase." He thinks it's just so darn clever!
by Mike Russo 3 years ago
Isn't interesting at the same time Jeff Sessions has said that he talked to Russia, Trump is accusing Obama of wire tapping him? And Trump has no evidence to support his claims. I believe this is another one of Trump's distractions to take the heat off of him and Jeff Sessions for...
by Don W 3 years ago
I've tried to piece together a timeline of potentially related events related to the sale of a Russian oil company that shed some light on why allegations of collusion between Trump, his staff and Russian officials, have been taken seriously enough to be investigated. Some of the original sources...
by Jack Lee 2 years ago
This is a shocking relvelation, if true, undermines our whole democratic process...Why is this not headline news?
by Scott Belford 3 years ago
Here are the FACTS as we know them:Jan 27, 2017: Trump has dinner with Comey and, according to Comey, Trump asked Comey for a loyalty oath' but Comey only promised Trump honesty. Trump says he didn't but thought it would have been a good idea.Jan 30, 2017: Trump fires Deputy Attorney General...
by A B Williams 3 years ago
I think I have a solution to the Jeff Sessions dilemma. Don't get me wrong, don't think there's any evidence to boot him and know that this is just more b.s. from the Dems tactical playbook.But....Repeal and Replace Jeff Sessions with Senator Ted Cruz?Too much? Would too many Republican...
by crankalicious 2 years ago
President Trump has been criticizing his Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, through Twitter. President Trump has called Sessions weak and ineffective, but Sessions hasn't responded (one usually doesn't respond to the criticism from your boss if you want to keep your job). Sessions has been a...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|