Did Sessions unthinkingly perjure: IOW, did he delibrately lie or not?

[Hutch Starskey]

RW media has been all over this issue today, and with a very few exceptions (notably Rush), the comments have been (1) a denial was made, (2) the leakers were blamed, (3) then it was admitted, (4) it was defended as no big deal and as a slip, leading to (5) why deny in the first place?

This is very Nixonesque.

I hope it was a slip of a tongue or min d.

Several smart experts have stated that there must be more context before totally branding Sessions as a liar - which is why they say there must be thorough investigations to get that context.

Absolutely. No question exists that he denied in fact what really happened. The investigation will provide context. Why deny in the first place? Why blame leakers?

Seems to be a trend among the Trump folks.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

This whole thing is blowing up in the democrats face! LMFAO

Sure.
It's blowing up so badly that Session has recused himself and by doing so he got the Dems 3/4 of the way to getting a special prosecutor.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

how's he a liar exactly?

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

dude, too funny. nice made up quote from him. now when you really want to discuss what he said, you can post his quote not yours.

That's what he said verbatim.

 

[Dot Com]

Sessions HAS to go NOW!!!. He's a perjurer.

No, Sessions is a liar. It takes a trial to prove he committed perjury. Remember, in America, people are innocent until proven guilty. This isn't Russia.

ummm..... he was under oath when answering questions for the committee. Care to try again?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

RW media has been all over this issue today, and with a very few exceptions (notably Rush), the comments have been (1) a denial was made, (2) the leakers were blamed, (3) then it was admitted, (4) it was defended as no big deal and as a slip, leading to (5) why deny in the first place?

This is very Nixonesque.

I hope it was a slip of a tongue or min d.

It's really a stretch to believe he simply did not remember having a meeting with the Russian ambassador, in his own office, during the campaign that he was involved with and in the midst of the hacking shitstorm.

and yet a democrat senator did. so it must not be that hard given what they do. childish stupid you all are posting up is hilarious. see my signature.

Derp.
Stick with Sessions. He's the one in the spotlight.

 

[jc456]

yep it was the question, I quoted it for you. funny how is it I wouldn't agree with that?

So you agree Sessions was affiliated with the Trump campaign?

And do you agree that Sessions meet with the russians between June 16th 2015 and November 8th 2016

i have no idea, he didn't say he was. again, read what he said. he said "he's been called a surrogate".

He was more than a surrogate. He became officially a member of the campaign in Feb of 2016 when he was named chairman of campaign's National Security Advisory Committee.

Sessions was more than Trump surrogate in meetings with Russian envoy

he was a sitting senator right? not sure your point? He was an advisor. He didn't campaign with trump.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

RW media has been all over this issue today, and with a very few exceptions (notably Rush), the comments have been (1) a denial was made, (2) the leakers were blamed, (3) then it was admitted, (4) it was defended as no big deal and as a slip, leading to (5) why deny in the first place?

This is very Nixonesque.

I hope it was a slip of a tongue or min d.

It's really a stretch to believe he simply did not remember having a meeting with the Russian ambassador, in his own office, during the campaign that he was involved with and in the midst of the hacking shitstorm.

It is incredible that a man as old and experienced as Jeff Sessions forgot the meetings he had with the Russian ambassador at the height of the Russian hacking scandal.
It is just possible the meetings slipped his mind momentarily, I suppose, and his subsequent action to recuse himself from overseeing the federal investigation into the hacking of Democratic emails by Russia would then be the honorable thing to do.

I believe his recusal had to happen as a face- saving measure. It only bought him time. This isn't going away. There cannot be questions like these hanging over the head of the chief law enforcement officer.

You are correct but a lot depends on the results of a thorough investigation of what the Russians did and why. Also, anyone therefore from the Trump campaign who was in talks with the Russians would be suspect if Russian hacking was going-on.

Exactly right.

 

[jc456]

Sessions HAS to go NOW!!!. He's a perjurer.

No, Sessions is a liar. It takes a trial to prove he committed perjury. Remember, in America, people are innocent until proven guilty. This isn't Russia.

ummm..... he was under oath when answering questions for the committee. Care to try again?

and he answered the question he was asked truthfully. And?

 

[jc456]

RW media has been all over this issue today, and with a very few exceptions (notably Rush), the comments have been (1) a denial was made, (2) the leakers were blamed, (3) then it was admitted, (4) it was defended as no big deal and as a slip, leading to (5) why deny in the first place?

This is very Nixonesque.

I hope it was a slip of a tongue or min d.

It's really a stretch to believe he simply did not remember having a meeting with the Russian ambassador, in his own office, during the campaign that he was involved with and in the midst of the hacking shitstorm.

and yet a democrat senator did. so it must not be that hard given what they do. childish stupid you all are posting up is hilarious. see my signature.

Derp.
Stick with Sessions. He's the one in the spotlight.

you made the statement derpette. If you want no answer, then say so. It seemed you were looking for an answer to me.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The question was,(paraphrasing) ,as the AG, if you found that the Trump campaign was in contact the with the Russians, what would you do?

Sessions then volunteered that he did not meet with any Russian officials even though he was never directly asked if he did.

Yet Trump supporters have trouble understanding the question that Franken asked. They keep reading "as a surrogate" into the question.

They're loop- holing.

 

[Rob37]

Clearly the Sessions thing caught some of us off guard because we are flabbergasted at how fucking stupid the leftist is and how asinine these allegations are.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Hutch Starskey]

yep it was the question, I quoted it for you. funny how is it I wouldn't agree with that?

So you agree Sessions was affiliated with the Trump campaign?

And do you agree that Sessions meet with the russians between June 16th 2015 and November 8th 2016

i have no idea, he didn't say he was. again, read what he said. he said "he's been called a surrogate".

He was more than a surrogate. He became officially a member of the campaign in Feb of 2016 when he was named chairman of campaign's National Security Advisory Committee.

Sessions was more than Trump surrogate in meetings with Russian envoy

he was a sitting senator right? not sure your point? He was an advisor. He didn't campaign with trump.

He was an official member of the campaign.
Not simply a surrogate.

 

[Mac1958]

And in the lead-up to that question, Franken said "These documents also allegedly say quote, ‘There was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump's surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government."

There it is, in context.
.

But that wasn't the question. Franken asked "if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?"

That was the question asked. Anything said before doesn't matter. That was the question asked of Sessions.

Anything said before doesn't matter???!!!

DIRECTLY before??? TWO SECONDS before??? As PART OF THE QUESTION before???

Okay, never mind. I'm not going to burn any more time on this.
.

 

[jc456]

yep it was the question, I quoted it for you. funny how is it I wouldn't agree with that?

So you agree Sessions was affiliated with the Trump campaign?

And do you agree that Sessions meet with the russians between June 16th 2015 and November 8th 2016

i have no idea, he didn't say he was. again, read what he said. he said "he's been called a surrogate".

He was more than a surrogate. He became officially a member of the campaign in Feb of 2016 when he was named chairman of campaign's National Security Advisory Committee.

Sessions was more than Trump surrogate in meetings with Russian envoy

he was a sitting senator right? not sure your point? He was an advisor. He didn't campaign with trump.

He was an official member of the campaign.
Not simply a surrogate.

he was a sitting senator. are you saying that doesn't count?

 

[Mac1958]

The only way the Dems can call this a lie is if they completely ignore both the words and the context of both the question and the answer.

Franken's question, in context, was "did you meet with the Russian guy as a surrogate for Trump?"

Sessions' answer was no.

Now, if someone has proof that in the conversations Sessions acted as a Trump surrogate, then that's a different story.
.

That question was never asked.
The question was,(paraphrasing) ,as the AG, if you found that the Trump campaign was in contact the with the Russians, what would you do?

Sessions then volunteered that he did not meet with any Russian officials even though he was never directly asked if he did.

You guys have him tried, convicted, replaced and destroyed.

The Republicans are denying everything out of hand.

I know. That's politics. I don't even know if either end of the spectrum is serious. I can never tell.
.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

So you agree Sessions was affiliated with the Trump campaign?

And do you agree that Sessions meet with the russians between June 16th 2015 and November 8th 2016

i have no idea, he didn't say he was. again, read what he said. he said "he's been called a surrogate".

He was more than a surrogate. He became officially a member of the campaign in Feb of 2016 when he was named chairman of campaign's National Security Advisory Committee.

Sessions was more than Trump surrogate in meetings with Russian envoy

he was a sitting senator right? not sure your point? He was an advisor. He didn't campaign with trump.

He was an official member of the campaign.
Not simply a surrogate.

he was a sitting senator. are you saying that doesn't count?

I didn't say that at all.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The only way the Dems can call this a lie is if they completely ignore both the words and the context of both the question and the answer.

Franken's question, in context, was "did you meet with the Russian guy as a surrogate for Trump?"

Sessions' answer was no.

Now, if someone has proof that in the conversations Sessions acted as a Trump surrogate, then that's a different story.
.

That question was never asked.
The question was,(paraphrasing) ,as the AG, if you found that the Trump campaign was in contact the with the Russians, what would you do?

Sessions then volunteered that he did not meet with any Russian officials even though he was never directly asked if he did.

You guys have him tried, convicted, replaced and destroyed.

The Republicans are denying everything out of hand.

I know. That's politics. I don't even know if either end of the spectrum is serious. I can never tell.
.

I was simply correcting you.

 

[jc456]

i have no idea, he didn't say he was. again, read what he said. he said "he's been called a surrogate".

He was more than a surrogate. He became officially a member of the campaign in Feb of 2016 when he was named chairman of campaign's National Security Advisory Committee.

Sessions was more than Trump surrogate in meetings with Russian envoy

he was a sitting senator right? not sure your point? He was an advisor. He didn't campaign with trump.

He was an official member of the campaign.
Not simply a surrogate.

he was a sitting senator. are you saying that doesn't count?

I didn't say that at all.

Ok, so what exactly?

 

[JakeStarkey]

What Sessions did indeed is worrisome and of great concern to the American public and its welfare

Explain how; I need a good Friday laugh....

No, you don't get "just once more." And neither should JC456: it was jc's statement that was false, not that of Hutch.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This whole thing is blowing up in the democrats face! LMFAO

Only in la la land w here you live is that true.