Thread: U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions

more similarities to the nixon administration...

One unpleasant parallel for Sessions comes from the prolonged confirmation hearings of Attorney General Richard Kleindienst in 1972.

During those hearings, Kleindienst denied that he'd received instructions from anyone at the White House about how to handle a high-profile antitrust investigation into ITT Corp.

"I was not interfered with by anybody at the White House," he said repeatedly.

A year later, tapes emerged of President Richard Nixon himself instructing Kleindienst to drop the case.

Kleindienst resigned less than a year into his tenure as attorney general. Prosecutors considered indicting him on multiple perjury counts, but he ultimately pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of contempt of Congress

Sessions could face legal ordeal over testimony - POLITICO

Richard Painter, who served as the chief ethics lawyer in President George W. Bush’s White House from 2005 to 2007, and is currently a law professor at the University of Minnesota. He is also on the board of Citizens for Responsible Ethics in Washington

"This is one of those situations where the testimony was highly misleading. Whether or not it amounts to perjury is debatable. Of course, we had a situation with President Clinton 20 years ago where he was never prosecuted for perjury even though he gave a highly misleading testimony in a civil deposition.

The difference here, of course, is that this is a matter of extreme national importance — what the Russians are doing in the United States and who’s been contacting the Russians. Whereas the president’s personal sex life is not of importance at all to the American people. [But] there are still consequences of such actions, particularly when it comes to issues of national security."

.........

"The facts now in this investigation are much worse than the facts in the early stages of Watergate, which was a simple break-in ordered by midlevel campaign officials — not by the president. Here we have facts that are much worse: We have a foreign power that has orchestrated a break-in. It’s a much worse situation than the outset of Watergate."

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politi...russia-scandal

And there's more... this is getting ridiculous

Attorney General Jeff Sessions is not the only member of President Trump’s campaign who spoke to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak at a diplomacy conference connected to the Republican National Convention in July. At least two more members of the Trump campaign’s national security officials also spoke with Kislyak at the event, and several more Trump national security advisers were in attendance.

It's unknown what the Trump campaign officials who spoke with the ambassador – J.D. Gordon and Carter Page – discussed with him. Those who took part in the events in Cleveland said it is not unusual for presidential campaign teams to interact with diplomats.

However, the newly-revealed communications further contradict months of repeated denials by Trump officials that his campaign had contact with officials representing the Russian government.

Exclusive: Two other Trump advisers also spoke with Russian envoy during GOP convention

Originally Posted by Humbert

At the minimum both Flynn and Sessions were trying to cover up their activities related to contact with the Russians. The issue is the lying that Trump and members of his administration are up to their necks in and the fact that their stories are changing daily. This is not going away.

Yes.
The issue is the lying. Constant lying from many members of Trump's staff, and from Trump himself.
You can not trust a person who lies. Simple.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Those who took part in the events in Cleveland said it is not unusual for presidential campaign teams to interact with diplomats.

I daresay allied countries' diplomats, not opponents. Spin doctoring.

Originally Posted by CSFFan

Why was the Russian ambassador meeting with Sessions when he was a ranking member of the armed forces committee? What possible reason could that be for, unless trying to peddle influence?

Shouldn't ambassadors be meeting with the state department rather than dealing with people who directly influence policy?

good question and i'm guessing the rationale is that senators want to hear all sides of an issue (including from paid lobbyists and ambassadors) before making a decision (whether that should be allowed or not).

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.

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

Originally Posted by CSFFan

Why was the Russian ambassador meeting with Sessions when he was a ranking member of the armed forces committee? What possible reason could that be for, unless trying to peddle influence?

Shouldn't ambassadors be meeting with the state department rather than dealing with people who directly influence policy?

good question and i'm guessing the rationale is that senators want to hear all sides of an issue (including from paid lobbyists and ambassadors) before making a decision (whether that should be allowed or not).

BUT... it must be investigated by an Independent special prosecutor with the authority to subpoena witnesses.

Otherwise it is too easy for the Republicans to thwart any meaningful probe.

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

Did Sessions break the law?

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

it is illegal for anyone (including a senator) to lie to or mislead congress.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

BUT... it must be investigated by an Independent special prosecutor with the authority to subpoena witnesses.

why are the disciples of the orange jesus so afraid of the facts being revealed?

Originally Posted by raycarey

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

BUT... it must be investigated by an Independent special prosecutor with the authority to subpoena witnesses.

why are the disciples of the orange jesus so afraid of the facts being revealed?

Because you can put a tissue on a turd but shit still stinks.

Originally Posted by raycarey

why are the disciples of the orange jesus so afraid of the facts being revealed?

agree with you and harry (as posted on this thread):

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

agree that the republicans should allow free, fair and open (to the public) hearings and bring in the spooks (who've been whispering to the wa post and ny times) and show their evidence of the trump campaign and russia conspiring to take down hillary (which is what they are implying with all their leaks).

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

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.

How do you know that?

Originally Posted by Cujo

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

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.

How do you know that?

because he said so in written testimony to the senate.

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.”

b.t.w., the spooks have been leaking to the post and times about trump's connections with the russians.

but, on the record the spooks have said no such thing (connections between trump and the russians).

don't suppose you have a link to the contrary? ;-)

the director of national intelliegence even said that there was no direct link between the russians and wikileaks (it's all spooks talking to the times and post):

James Clapper: We 'don't have good insight' into alleged Russian hacking - Washington Times

As recently as Nov. 17, James Clapper, the nation’s top intelligence officer, told Congress his agencies “don’t have good insight” into a direct link between WikiLeaks and the emails supposedly hacked by a Russian operation from Democrats and the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

b.t.w., the spooks have been leaking to the post and times about trump's connections with the russians.

Do you have a link that says who's doing the leaking?

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

the director of national intelliegence even said that there was no link between the russians and wikileaks:

Does "no link" = "no insight"?

Originally Posted by CSFFan

Do you have a link that says who's doing the leaking?

of course not.

what do you think about clapper's comment?

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

the director of national intelliegence even said that there was no direct link between the russians and wikileaks (it's all spooks talking to the times and post):

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

Originally Posted by Cujo

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

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.

How do you know that?

because he said so in written testimony to the senate.

Originally Posted by CSFFan

Does "no link" = "no insight"?

now we're getting into opinion, right.

you think that the trump campaign and the russians had a nefarious, treasonous plan to take down hillary, right?

if not, what are you on about, praytell?

Originally Posted by raycarey

l

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

b.t.w., the spooks have been leaking to the post and times about trump's connections with the russians.

but, on the record the spooks have said no such thing (connections between trump and the russians).

don't suppose you have a link to the contrary? ;-)

laughing idiot

go on then, ray.

where are these news stories of the spooks saying there are links between the russians and the trump campaign?

links?

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

what do you think about clapper's comment?

Clapper said he had "no insight" on the hacking...what does no insight mean to you? Does it mean he can't definitively comment on the hacking...or does it mean there's no link? Does it mean it doesn't have enough information to comment publicly, or that giving an insight isn't within his area of responsibility?

Originally Posted by CSFFan

Clapper said he had "no insight" on the hacking...what does no insight mean to you? Does it mean he can't definitively comment on the hacking...or does it mean there's no link? Does it mean it doesn't have enough information to comment publicly, or that giving an insight isn't within his area of responsibility?

let's face it topper, spooks are leaking stuff to the ny time and wa post,

but they never say there are links between the the trump campaign and the russians.

where are these news stories of the spooks saying there are links between the russians and the trump campaign?

links?

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

go on then, ray.

where are these news stories of the spooks saying there are links between the russians and the trump campaign?

links?

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

you think that the trump campaign and the russians had a nefarious, treasonous plan to take down hillary, right?

No, of course not....

The Russian found a willing dupe, convinced him he was the man, then financed and indirectly supported his campaign in order to install a weak president.

Now, America's allies are unsure what trump's going to do next. trump's created chaos here at home and with our friends abroad.

If America can't be trusted to keep it's word or to be as predictable as a 3:00am tweet from the presidential shitter, where is the world going to look to as a stable leader....because remember, stability trumps most things in the political world.

Russia picked who would best benefit Russia....it wasn't about fucking over Hillary, so much as furthering Russian interests.

Originally Posted by CSFFan

The Russian found a willing dupe, convinced him he was the man, then financed and indirectly supported his campaign in order to install a weak president.

fair enough that is your opinion, but no u.s. intelligence agency agrees with you.