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

People used to consider a lie as being saying something that wasnt true. Now nothing can be a lie unless you can find out what people were thinking at the time. Since you cant prove that lying doesnt exist


That was my first thought as well - until I learned he had met with him twice and lied twice.

Reagan's incredible testimony notwithstanding, I would believe it happened once. But, twice?
 
Good explanation on what constitutes perjury. Bottom line is that the two questions posed to Sessions involved the campaign. Neither meeting with the Russian ambassador involved the campaign.

Consequently, he answered truthfully.

"California trial attorney Robert Barnes writes that Attorney General Jeff Sessions “absolutely did not perjure himself” during testimony to Congress."

Trial Lawyer: 'Jeff Sessions Absolutely Did NOT Perjure Himself' - Breitbart
How big are your shoulders now from carrying all that water?
 
Sure he met with the Ambassador of Russia.....as well as several others around that time. Such as Japan, China, UK to name a few all while as a Senator and on the Armed Services Committee. So yes he did have contact with Russia.
Was is conspiratorial to get his guy in office & mess with the election???? Doubtful
 
Why would he lie about something that is so easy to confirm?


Twice.


.

Glad you agree.


We can always count on you RWNJ traitors to lie.

We see this all the time on this board - the RWNJ traitors quote only a part of a post and then lie about what it said.

No wonder you love the cheeto in chief's constant lies.


.

Part of your post? Your post was one word ya fucken halfwit.
 
People used to consider a lie as being saying something that wasnt true. Now nothing can be a lie unless you can find out what people were thinking at the time. Since you cant prove that lying doesnt exist
Sure you can, and the tortur . . . er, investigators will find out.
 
He did not answer truthfully.

He met with the Russian.

He said he did not.

Whether it was a slip or a lie is the issue, and the truth will be found out.
That wasn't the conversation however.....
Yes, it is. I posted the OP, and this is the conversation.

He recused himself, which is a start to redemption.
 
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.
.
 
Sure he met with the Ambassador of Russia.....as well as several others around that time. Such as Japan, China, UK to name a few all while as a Senator and on the Armed Services Committee. So yes he did have contact with Russia.
Was is conspiratorial to get his guy in office & mess with the election???? Doubtful


Is that even a question?

Its that he met with the ambassador twice and lied about it twice.

Once I can see. But twice?

Not to mention that damn near every person in the administration has very shady connections to Russia.

It stinks to high heaven.
 
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.

given the extraordinary estrangement of this administration from the truth, why would you think it wasn't intentional?
 
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.
.

No, if Sessions wanted to be truthful, he would have said, "Yes I met with the Russians but it had nothing to do with the Trump campaign."
 
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.
.

No, if Sessions wanted to be truthful, he would have said, "Yes I met with the Russians but it had nothing to do with the Trump campaign."
He said the same thing, only not in your words. He even used the same word - surrogate - that Franken used.

This is political.
.
 
is anyone surprised the "republican" jakey is coming out swinging against a republican......
And much of right wing radio today said Sessions must toe the line along with the other witnesses. Rush was a notable exception.

You are a far right regressive pretending to be normal, and your comments have never meant much, so I will ignore you here for the rest of the day.

As Doug Wright said on KSL today, the questions have to be asked and Sessions and other witnesses much be held to the standard.
 

Forum List

Back
Top