Jeff Sessions, Trumps new AG and Former Campaign Advisor, lied about his Russian contacts

a reply to: Irishhaf

Again not the talk though that is concerning since their business should not cross, but lying. Perjury. Under oath.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Indigo5

Yes, because the question was aimed at people communicating with the Russians over the campaign. They didn't ask him if he met with the Russians as a member of the Senate.

It's like if I asked you:

Concerning pedophilia, have you ever talked with an underage girl?

And you said no.

And then I call you a liar and proceed to trot out how you talked with your neighbor's 9-year-old daughter. Then I ask you why you lied about it and what you're trying to hide.

Now you are trying to explain yourself and we all wonder what you are hiding.

But that would be a lie and perjury (if you are under oath for this question). You could just answer yes and say you've spoken to many underage girls. It's not illegal or an example of pedophilia just to talk to a minor.

originally posted by: Irishhaf

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Irishhaf

I haven't used the word treason once in this thread.

Congrats you avoided it this time?

It has been used multiple times and you tried to put words in my mouth saying I dont want an investigation..

Here I will save you time... "you said let it go" that means do not investigate... actually it does not when you look at my previous boy that cried wolf posts, and my post history complaining about the over use of big words that generate "shock"value... like treason.

hence me saying Investigate to your hearts content, but leave the hyperbole at home till you have something beside "an anonymous source said" ...

You want to get him for perjury go... get on it... he wasnt my idea of a great AG anyway I am partial to medical MJ.

I don't want to go after him with perjury right now actually. I want to develop a better case to take down more of the admin as I think there is MUCH more to uncover here and we shouldn't pull the trigger too early. It would be awesome if he got Flynned though.

a reply to: ketsuko

It doesn't matter in what capacity or committee she met with the Russian ambassador.

Actually it does matter. Sessions specifically stated that his meeting with the ambassador related to his duties as a member of the Armed Forces Committee. McCaskill stated that in the 10 years she has been a member of that committee she has never had contact with the Russian ambassador in relation to her role in that committee. To further solidify this point not a single member of the committee asked could fathom why Sessions was meeting with the Russian ambassador in relation to his role on the committee.

Sessions is the one that specifically said it was a meeting that pertained to the Armed Forces Committee. Apparently such meetings aren't exactly the norm. Doesn't that raise any kind of red flags?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

But the way the question is phrased, the person being asked is invited to think you are being asked if you talked to minor about pedophilia.

In this case, the question was phrased as if he was being asked about meeting with the Russians over the campaign itself.

So that begs the question: How much do the Democrats know to try to trap him?

There is speculation that the question was phrased that way on purpose in order to try to force Sessions to recuse with an answer just like this. If that is so, then someone knew these leaks were coming. Indeed. Sessions was investigated last year with other campaign members by Obama insiders. This means, they want to try to subpoena Trump stuff and then leak it, but they need Sessions out of the way so they can get a career (Obama) insider in charge of that dog and pony show.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Indigo5


It's like if I asked you:

Concerning pedophilia, have you ever talked with an underage girl?

And you said no.

???

I'd say yes...But I am not a pedophile.

(Affirmative) + (Negative)..Accurate and truthful answer.

More so if I was a purported legal authority under oath.

Sessions also addressed both components..

"I didn't have — did not have communications with the Russians, and I'm unable to comment on it."

(Negative - No contact on Russia) + (Negative - unable to comment on the reported Russian ties to the campaign)

Part 1 was a lie under oath.

a reply to: ketsuko

Where did she lie? She stated that she has never met or talked to the Russian ambassador in relation to her position on the Armed Forces Committee.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Why would it?

Democrats do this kind of crap all the time, and it doesn't seem to raise any red flags when they do.

But here are the two questions:

The first was text pre-hearing:

SEN. PATRICK J. 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?” the Vermont Democrat asked SESSIONS: No.

The second is verbal at the hearing:

SEN. AL FRANKEN: “If there was any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this (2016) campaign, what would you do?,” the Minnesota Democrat asked. SESSIONS: “I’m not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.”

There is even a photo of Senator Claire McCaskill meeting and talking face to face with the Russian Ambassador.

mobile.twitter.com...

What a liar!

a reply to: Indigo5

Are you sure?

Been to many hearings of that nature have you?

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: ketsuko

Where did she lie? She stated that she has never met or talked to the Russian ambassador in relation to her position on the Armed Forces Committee.

Again, what is she hiding?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Irishhaf

Again not the talk though that is concerning since their business should not cross, but lying. Perjury. Under oath.

If you want to blow your political capital going after him.. sure knock yourself out, but go check a list of criminally convicted politicians... I just scanned it but did not see any that were guilty of just perjury.

If someone violated the law and you want to spend political capital chasing them all down, go right ahead.

(I am not talking about right and wrong here)

I know a lot of folks on the left are incensed that Trump is president, but think through the doors you want opened, there is a very good reason without a clear violation of the law (watergate) you do not see political parties go after Presidents.

Because they know it will only be a matter of time before the other guy comes after them, perjury is peanuts... put pressure on for a resignation sure go for it, does not bother me... perjury conviction, I will eat my hat if it happens.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

But the way the question is phrased, the person being asked is invited to think you are being asked if you talked to minor about pedophilia.

That's called a leading question and a lawyer can object to it.

In this case, the question was phrased as if he was being asked about meeting with the Russians over the campaign itself.

So that begs the question: How much do the Democrats know to try to trap him?

There is speculation that the question was phrased that way on purpose in order to try to force Sessions to recuse with an answer just like this. If that is so, then someone knew these leaks were coming. Indeed. Sessions was investigated last year with other campaign members by Obama insiders. This means, they want to try to subpoena Trump stuff and then leak it, but they need Sessions out of the way so they can get a career (Obama) insider in charge of that dog and pony show.

All Sessions had to do was admit to the meeting and clarify its purpose. If he was upfront about it, even just in case, then he'd have nothing to worry about today. Your trying to apologize for his actions and implicate the Democrats looks weak. This is a problem entire of Sessions' own making.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: ketsuko

Where did she lie? She stated that she has never met or talked to the Russian ambassador in relation to her position on the Armed Forces Committee.

You mean like Sessions stating he has never met or talked to the Russian amassador in relation to his position as a Trump surrogate?

a reply to: ketsuko

Nothing. She admitted to having the meeting. She specified what the meeting was about. And there are witnesses that can confirm the details.

Sessions on the other hand met with the Russian ambassador alone. He claims the meeting was in regards to the Armed Forces Committee but every member of the committee has said such a meeting is highly irregular and that he never told the other members of the committee about the meeting. And his story keeps changing about the meeting. Oh, yeah and he lied to Congress about the meeting even occurring.

What is he hiding?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Meh... we've heard him change directions in the same conversation. Heck in the same sentence.
Sessions has just announced a presser this afternoon. Hmmmm...

a reply to: Deny Arrogance

No not like that. McCaskill specified that members of the Armed Forces Committee do not meet with ambassadors. Sessions said he had no contact with any Russian officials during the election. He never stated that he was specifically referring to in relation to his work on the Trump campaign.

Even then the fact that he stated he met with the ambassador as a member of the Armed Forces Committee is highly suspicious. If the ambassador wanted to talk to a member of the committee why not go to McCain? Why not go to the committee as a whole? Why did he choose the one person that just so happened to be close to Trump?

This meeting is a serious red flag. Unfortunately, Sessions, and now Trump, seem to be avoiding that fact. If it was an innocuous meeting why doesn't Sessions disclose what was discussed? Instead he keeps changing his story. The fact that this meeting was highly irregular and that Sessions seems to be skirting the issue should be clear grounds for him to at the very least recuse himself from any investigation involving Russia.

I thought Trump was supposed to be the law and order President.

Sessions will hold a press conference at 4pm est.

Fox

Will he deny, recuse himself from Russia investigations, or step down as AG?

It's good to remember here that Hillary's lies under oath, and Attorney General Lynch's conflicts of interest, all of which were far more egregious, were not met with the same level of scrutiny and outrage by the parties and the press who are now calling for the resignation and recusal of Sessions.

Probably to resign, it is what normally happens, and no prosecution will occur.