Thread: U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions

Originally Posted by Humbert

If you read that then why do you keep asking the same question repeatedly?

you brought it up again:

Originally Posted by Humbert

Hillary supporters did not lie to the American public at the Sessions confirmation hearings.

---

Originally Posted by Humbert

You think it was proper for him to not disclose these meeting during his confirmation hearings?

i think he should have said he met with the russian ambassador as a sentator.

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

sessions didn't lie, he was talking about contacts between the trump campaign and russia.

from the ny times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/02/u...=top-news&_r=0

In his account Thursday of the more substantive meeting, which took place in his Senate office on Sept. 8, Mr. Sessions described Mr. Kislyak as one of a parade of envoys who seek out lawmakers like him to glean information about American policies and promote the agendas of their governments.

“Somehow, the subject of Ukraine came up,” Mr. Sessions said, recalling that the meeting grew testy after the ambassador defended Russia’s conduct toward its neighbor and heaped blame on everybody else. “I thought he was pretty much of an old-style, Soviet-type ambassador,” Mr. Sessions said, noting that he declined a lunch invitation from Mr. Kislyak.

“In retrospect,” Mr. Sessions told reporters, “I should have slowed down and said, ‘But I did meet one Russian official a couple of times, and that would be the ambassador.’”

Originally Posted by Humbert

It had nothing whatsoever to do with my views regarding the truthfulness of Sessions answers during his confirmation hearings.

so, i'm guessing you would amend this comment:

Originally Posted by Humbert

Hillary supporters did not lie to the American public at the Sessions confirmation hearings.

like sesssions would like to amend his comments and did:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...09f_story.html

In January, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) asked Sessions for answers to written questions. “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?”

Leahy wrote.
Sessions responded with one word: “No.”
In a statement issued Wednesday night, Session said he “never met with any Russian officials to discuss issues of the campaign. I have no idea what this allegation is about. It is false.”

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

as, even though you read left wing rags that vow to "resist" trump, i'm sure you don't think that sessions met with the russian ambassador to plot how to take down hillary. right?

Since he so categorically denies meeting and talking with the Russian ambassador and now being caught in that lie then the question has to be asked:
What was it they discussed that he so dearly wished to cover up?

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

so, i'm guessing you would amend this comment: Quote:
Originally Posted by Humbert Hillary supporters did not lie to the American public at the Sessions confirmation hearings.

Why would I do that you moron? It is my opinion that he lied which I have told you now several times.

Originally Posted by Humbert

It is my opinion that he lied

ok, fair enough.

Originally Posted by Humbert

Of course he lied. It's perjury.

Originally Posted by CSFFan

After listening, I don't think Sessions understood the question that Franken asked.

He should have answered, "As a leading member of a Senate committee, I had regular contact with not only the Russian ambassador, but ambassadors with many other countries as well."

Instead, he said he didn't have any contact with the Russians....simply stupid.

If he's too dumb to understand a simple question, WTF is he doing in that job.

Anyway, he's had to recuse himself now.

The next step is to appoint an Independent Special Prosecutor.

It doesn't really matter if they don't.

You have to laugh at the irony. They spent all this time and money on pointless fucking Benghazi investigations and leaked shit like a sieve to try and make out they'd found something when there was nothing there.

This time they'll be doing their best to try and hide what they find.

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

as you know, sessions didn't lie, he was talking about contacts between the trump campaign and russia.

He was part of the campaign you idiot.

Of course he lied.

Now he's been forced to recuse himself.

What else could he do when there's an investigation into inappropriate contact with Russia?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

as you know, sessions didn't lie, he was talking about contacts between the trump campaign and russia.

He was part of the campaign you idiot.

so, harry:

do you think sessions was lying when he answered "no" to leahy's question?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...09f_story.html

In January, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) asked Sessions for answers to written questions. “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?”

Leahy wrote.


Sessions responded with one word: “No.”


In a statement issued Wednesday night, Session said he “never met with any Russian officials to discuss issues of the campaign. I have no idea what this allegation is about. It is false.”

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

as you know, sessions didn't lie, he was talking about contacts between the trump campaign and russia.

Of course he lied. It's perjury. Look at the vid of his testimony instead of your interpretations that gloss over and twist his words.

.

Lying is a perjury? In such state speaking about Weapons of Mass Destruction (Deception)?

Six times Jeff Sessions talked about perjury, access and recusal — when it involved the Clintons



http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/p...-the-clintons/

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

He was part of the campaign you idiot.
Of course he lied.
Now he's been forced to recuse himself.
What else could he do when there's an investigation into inappropriate contact with Russia?

He said he had no contact with the Russians. Now he is saying that what he meant was that he no contact with the Russians to discuss the campaign. Clearly he lied about contact in an attempt to mislead.

Originally Posted by Klondyke

Lying is a perjury?

What do you think perjury is? Lying under oath is perjury.

Originally Posted by Humbert

Clearly he lied about contact in an attempt to mislead.

why would he lie to mislead? his meetings with the russian ambassador were not about the campaign.

unless, you think sessions and the russian ambassador met in sessions' senate office for secret, treasonous talks to undermine u.s. democracy and defeat hillary, then sesssions wasn't "attempting to mislead" anyone.

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by Klondyke

Originally Posted by Humbert

Of course he lied. It's perjury.

Lying is a perjury?

What do you think perjury is? Lying under oath is perjury.

well, there is more to it than that:

Sessions and Russia: What You Need to Know - NBC News

Did Sessions break the law?

It's not illegal for senators to meet with foreign ambassadors.

Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri, and Sen. Joe Manchin, D-West Virginia, both acknowledged Wednesday that they had met Kislyak.

And it does not appear at this point that Sessions could be found to have committed perjury, experts said.

The law requires showing that someone intended to give a false statement, which in this case would require an analysis of what Sessions believed the questions meant, said Stan Brand, a former general counsel to the House of Representatives who has represented high-profile government officials in public corruption cases.

"The burden for proving that is high," Brand said.

Richard Painter, a former White House ethics officer under President George W. Bush, said Sessions could argue credibly that he thought questions were limited to whether he discussed the campaign with Russian officials.

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

why would he lie to mislead

Mislead about the fact that meetings occured. Are you really this stupid? I have pointed this out to you several times now.

Originally Posted by Humbert

Mislead about the fact that meetings occured.

i'm guessing if this was obama's attorney general you would be saying something different as you are blinded by your hostility to the trump admin.

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

unless, you think sessions and the russian ambassador met in sessions' senate office for secret, treasonous talks to undermine u.s. democracy and defeat hillary, then sesssions wasn't "attempting to mislead" anyone.

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

i'm guessing if this was obama's attorney general you would be saying something different as you are blinded by your hostility to the trump admin.

So it makes no difference to you that in a confirmation hearing a nominee for the office of Attorney General, who is the chief legal officer for the US government, lies under direct questioning to mislead the committee and the American public about meetings he had with officials of the Russian government? And you call me partisan?

Originally Posted by Humbert

lies under direct questioning to mislead the committee and the American public about meetings he had with officials of the Russian government? And you call me partisan?

you call it lies and perjury

Originally Posted by Humbert

Of course he lied. It's perjury.

because you think he was trying to cover up something sinister?

i'm guessing sessions will be the attorney general for 4 years (or more):

Sessions and Russia: What You Need to Know - NBC News

And it does not appear at this point that Sessions could be found to have committed perjury, experts said.

The law requires showing that someone intended to give a false statement, which in this case would require an analysis of what Sessions believed the questions meant, said Stan Brand, a former general counsel to the House of Representatives

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

you call it lies and perjury because you think he was trying to cover up something sinister.

You keep saying this. He lied about the meetings. I have no idea what was discussed. It may have been totally innocuous, it may have not. Look, I have not made my mind up about the Trump administration plotting with the Russian government to harm Hillary Clinton. What we need is an impartial investigation. It is clear that the Russians were motivated to do this, they hated Clinton for her efforts to encircle them through NATO. We are suspicious because Trump has never condemned any of their actions and seemingly embraces Putin and his murderous regime. Trump and his contacts and communications need to be investigated.