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

[ClosedCaption]

What did Sessions and the Russian guy talk about when they met?

Nothing wrong I assure you. Just ask Sessions!

He couldn't remember but it seems like his memory has returned. HALLELUAH!

So you don't know.

I'm shocked, I say. Shocked.
.

I told you to ask the guy who just reused himself what he spoke about. Surely his word is good enough for you and he says they spoke about other stuff, not Trump tho.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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?

I don't know that and neither do you.

 

[Mac1958]

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

Perhaps you can clarify something.

Both Franken's question and Sessions' answer were in the context of Sessions meeting with the Russian as a Trump surrogate. They both used the word "surrogate".

So when they met, what did they talk about?
.

 

[Mac1958]

What did Sessions and the Russian guy talk about when they met?

Nothing wrong I assure you. Just ask Sessions!

He couldn't remember but it seems like his memory has returned. HALLELUAH!

So you don't know.

I'm shocked, I say. Shocked.
.

I told you to ask the guy who just reused himself what he spoke about. Surely his word is good enough for you and he says they spoke about other stuff, not Trump tho.

Okay, I'll have to ask him, since you don't know but still say he was lying.

Weak.
.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Hey Moron, here's a question for you:

How do you commit perjury when answering a hypothetical question?

Think real hard Einstein.

I'll wait.

 

[ClosedCaption]

In fact, Sessions spoke to the Russians while they were committing cyber warfare in our election and while Trump was on Russian TV the same day about peach cobbler recipes

 

[Lewdog]

Since Sessions is a lawyer and former judge let's look at this from a "legal" stand point.

1. Did Sessions have motive as part of the Trump campaign team (Foreign Relations Advisor) to want to talk to the Russians? Yes, it was September and the news was breaking about the Russians interfering in the elections to get Trump elected.

2. Is it true he met with the Russian Ambassador? Yes, there is proof of that.

3. Did Sessions say under oath to Congress that he had never met with the Russians as a part of Trump's campaign team? Yes, twice. He said it in an answer to Senator Franken and in writing to Senator Leahy.

In a court of law, if you, I, or any ordinary citizen met those types of legal requirements, we'd be toast.

 

[Lewdog]

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.
.

No he didn't... he said he never met with the Russians. At what point did he say he had met with the Russians but didn't talk about the campaign?

 

[Yurt]

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.

awe....poor baby....can't handle the truth....he didn't lie, you're lying

 

[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.
.

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.
.

No he didn't... he said he never met with the Russians. At what point did he say he had met with the Russians but didn't talk about the campaign?

If you have seen the video or read the transcript, you would know that Franken's question was whether Sessions met with the guy as a Trump surrogate. HE used the word "surrogate". Sessions repeated the word in his answer. "Surrogate".

If the whole question and answer are considered, it's pretty clear.
.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Hey Moron, here's a question for you:

How do you commit perjury when answering a hypothetical question?

Think real hard Einstein.

I'll wait.

He was asked and he said "no" that he had not talked to the Russians during the campaign and then later he recanted that testimony. The question is "was it a lie then or was it inadvertent."

 

[The Original Tree]

There is a greater chance Loretta Lynch was lying and should have been forced out of office, than Sessions resigning.

Loretta Lynch got caught meeting in private with a man she was supposed to be investigating and 24 hours later decided to seal his records.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Whether he met with a Russian or not has nothing to do with the question that was asked, now does it. Paraphrasing the question:

If you found out that the trump campaign, as is reported to be the case in a rumored dossier, if you found out they met with Russian officials, what will you do?

THIS IS WHERE YOUR ARGUMENT FAILS AS THE ANSWER IS:

Sessions: I can't answer that.

Any decent attorney knows you can't answer a hypothetical question.

DAMN LIBERALS ARE EASY!

 

[Pop23]

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.

Hey Moron, here's a question for you:

How do you commit perjury when answering a hypothetical question?

Think real hard Einstein.

I'll wait.

He was asked and he said "no" that he had not talked to the Russians during the campaign and then later he recanted that testimony. The question is "was it a lie then or was it inadvertent."

Link.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Hey Moron, here's a question for you:

How do you commit perjury when answering a hypothetical question?

Think real hard Einstein.

I'll wait.

He was asked and he said "no" that he had not talked to the Russians during the campaign and then later he recanted that testimony. The question is "was it a lie then or was it inadvertent."

Link.

No, you don't get "just once more."

Hey, did you hear he recused himself? That's a good start.

Pop, he said he did not then he said he did, and therein lies the rub.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.
.

No he didn't... he said he never met with the Russians. At what point did he say he had met with the Russians but didn't talk about the campaign?

He never met with the Russians in any capacity other than as a Senator.
He was asked if he'd had contact with the Russians regarding the election,sessions said no. Which is entirely truthful.

You pukes need to get a life.

 

[Pop23]

In fact, Sessions spoke to the Russians while they were committing cyber warfare in our election and while Trump was on Russian TV the same day about peach cobbler recipes

As a senator. It's part of a senators job.

 

[Lakhota]

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.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

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.

and 'damn near every person in the administration' is a politician that's held public office that would have some type of 'connection', dealings or conversations with Russia.

Whether he outright lied or not is the lefts problem here. Ya'll can't seem to understand that YES Sessions did have conversations with Russia (and several other countries as well)...as I and many others on USMB and on several links scattered throughout the board has said.......as part of his job as Senator and member of the Armed Services Committee.

So now that we have that part covered, comes the question of what was discussed during those convos???? Do you really think he spoke of national/global politic issues with everyone else, but only spoke of hacking US elections with Russia???? I have little to no doubt you'd say YES, YES, YES.....but realistically it's highly unlikely

Now, IF Sessions was caught in the back room either in person or on the phone speaking PRIVATELY with Russia in hushed tones, then you might have something

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Alt Righties refuse to understand the understandable.

Of course it does.