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

[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.

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.

Link to the question you claimed was not a hypothetical. Or are you wimping out?

Of course you are!

I love kicking your ass. I never tire of these victories! They're easy and oh so fulfilling.

 

[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.

Link to the question you claimed was not a hypothetical. Or are you wimping out?

Of course you are!

I love kicking your ass. I never tire of these victories! They're easy and oh so fulfilling.

That's you in the mirror you are kicking.

You are on personal ignore for irresponsibility for the rest of this thread. Buh bye.

 

[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.

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.

Several smart experts (lol, man can you turn a phrase).....

But that would leave you out!

 

[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?

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.

Again, not sure how many times I have to say this... he is a lawyer and a former judge. He should know better than any of us how important it is to give an exact and straight answer, especially while under oath. He should have said "Yes, but when I met with Russian officials it had nothing to do with the campaign." When a person is coy with their answers while under oath, if it isn't out right untruthful, it borders on untruthful enough to make a normal person question whether they can trust that person in the future, and that is not something you want in the Attorney General of the United States.

I think it is pretty obvious that all of Trump's cabinet members were told to distance themselves from Russia as much as possible during their confirmation hearings, and it is coming back to bite them in the ass now.

 

[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

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

Also as a surrogate and he said he never had contact...except he remembers that he did.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Link to the question you claimed was not a hypothetical. Or are you wimping out?

Of course you are!

I love kicking your ass. I never tire of these victories! They're easy and oh so fulfilling.

That's you in the mirror you are kicking.

You are on personal ignore for irresponsibility for the rest of this thread. Buh bye.

I PROVED MORON BOY A COWARD!

Post a claim, and can't back it up!

I love winning? But Trump was wrong about one thing.........

I never get tired of it!

 

[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.

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?

 

[Pop23]

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.

Again, not sure how many times I have to say this... he is a lawyer and a former judge. He should know better than any of us how important it is to give an exact and straight answer, especially while under oath. He should have said "Yes, but when I met with Russian officials it had nothing to do with the campaign." When a person is coy with their answers while under oath, if it isn't out right untruthful, it borders on untruthful enough to make a normal person question whether they can trust that person in the future, and that is not something you want in the Attorney General of the United States.

I think it is pretty obvious that all of Trump's cabinet members were told to distance themselves from Russia as much as possible during their confirmation hearings, and it is coming back to bite them in the ass now.

No, the question was posed:

What will you do?

The answer was (and this is where the argument that he lied fails)

Starts by putting the question in proper context, making sure it is known as a hypothetical..........

"I am not aware of that.........."

Then, because it is a hypothetical

"I can't answer that"

Beautifully done.

Key point, he WAS NEVER ASKED IF HE MET WITH A RUSSIAN during the Frankenstein questioning.

 

[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.

Also as a surrogate and he said he never had contact...except he remembers that he did.

Link to the question he lied to.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sessions recuses himself from Russia investigations

He bows to the pressure.

Sessions recuses himself from Russia investigations - CNNPolitics.com

 

[Pop23]

Poor Jake, I simply asked for a link to the non hypothetical question that He claims Sessions lied to.

Jake ran

Cuz he can't provide the link



DAMN, this is fun

 

[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.

Again, not sure how many times I have to say this... he is a lawyer and a former judge. He should know better than any of us how important it is to give an exact and straight answer, especially while under oath. He should have said "Yes, but when I met with Russian officials it had nothing to do with the campaign." When a person is coy with their answers while under oath, if it isn't out right untruthful, it borders on untruthful enough to make a normal person question whether they can trust that person in the future, and that is not something you want in the Attorney General of the United States.

I think it is pretty obvious that all of Trump's cabinet members were told to distance themselves from Russia as much as possible during their confirmation hearings, and it is coming back to bite them in the ass now.

He was being questioned about talking to Russia about the election.
You never offer up added info while being questioned by a hostile.

 

[jillian]

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.

Educated guess based upon the behavior of this admin in addressing every single unethical thing they do.

 

[jillian]

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.

Again, not sure how many times I have to say this... he is a lawyer and a former judge. He should know better than any of us how important it is to give an exact and straight answer, especially while under oath. He should have said "Yes, but when I met with Russian officials it had nothing to do with the campaign." When a person is coy with their answers while under oath, if it isn't out right untruthful, it borders on untruthful enough to make a normal person question whether they can trust that person in the future, and that is not something you want in the Attorney General of the United States.

I think it is pretty obvious that all of Trump's cabinet members were told to distance themselves from Russia as much as possible during their confirmation hearings, and it is coming back to bite them in the ass now.

He was being questioned about talking to Russia about the election.
You never offer up added info while being questioned by a hostile.

Tissue?

Funny how people who thought a private email server deserved years worth of investigation are unconcerned about collision with Russia.

 

[Eloy]

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.

Again, not sure how many times I have to say this... he is a lawyer and a former judge. He should know better than any of us how important it is to give an exact and straight answer, especially while under oath. He should have said "Yes, but when I met with Russian officials it had nothing to do with the campaign." When a person is coy with their answers while under oath, if it isn't out right untruthful, it borders on untruthful enough to make a normal person question whether they can trust that person in the future, and that is not something you want in the Attorney General of the United States.

I think it is pretty obvious that all of Trump's cabinet members were told to distance themselves from Russia as much as possible during their confirmation hearings, and it is coming back to bite them in the ass now.

He was being questioned about talking to Russia about the election.
You never offer up added info while being questioned by a hostile.

Sessions swore an oath to tell the whole truth.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

Again, not sure how many times I have to say this... he is a lawyer and a former judge. He should know better than any of us how important it is to give an exact and straight answer, especially while under oath. He should have said "Yes, but when I met with Russian officials it had nothing to do with the campaign." When a person is coy with their answers while under oath, if it isn't out right untruthful, it borders on untruthful enough to make a normal person question whether they can trust that person in the future, and that is not something you want in the Attorney General of the United States.

I think it is pretty obvious that all of Trump's cabinet members were told to distance themselves from Russia as much as possible during their confirmation hearings, and it is coming back to bite them in the ass now.

He was being questioned about talking to Russia about the election.
You never offer up added info while being questioned by a hostile.

I love how Jill gave me a laugh....
Ask any attorney jill. You never give them more than they ask you for.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

Again, not sure how many times I have to say this... he is a lawyer and a former judge. He should know better than any of us how important it is to give an exact and straight answer, especially while under oath. He should have said "Yes, but when I met with Russian officials it had nothing to do with the campaign." When a person is coy with their answers while under oath, if it isn't out right untruthful, it borders on untruthful enough to make a normal person question whether they can trust that person in the future, and that is not something you want in the Attorney General of the United States.

I think it is pretty obvious that all of Trump's cabinet members were told to distance themselves from Russia as much as possible during their confirmation hearings, and it is coming back to bite them in the ass now.

He was being questioned about talking to Russia about the election.
You never offer up added info while being questioned by a hostile.

Tissue?

Funny how people who thought a private email server deserved years worth of investigation are unconcerned about collision with Russia.

Hmmmm....one's a proven fact the other is complete bullshit.

 

[oreo]

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.

Ha.Ha.---Watching national news tonight not only did Sessions lie to congress, but prior to being interviewed by congress, he filled out a form and checked a box that said NO he had no contacts with any Russians and signed it--LOL It's kind of hard to be that forgetful. They showed the signed form on the news.

But the right wing media comments are not at all surprising. They're wholly invested into Trump and helped him win the Nomination, and they now own it. So break out your crayons and coloring books, turn on your Sean Hannity this is going to get very interesting.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

Again, not sure how many times I have to say this... he is a lawyer and a former judge. He should know better than any of us how important it is to give an exact and straight answer, especially while under oath. He should have said "Yes, but when I met with Russian officials it had nothing to do with the campaign." When a person is coy with their answers while under oath, if it isn't out right untruthful, it borders on untruthful enough to make a normal person question whether they can trust that person in the future, and that is not something you want in the Attorney General of the United States.

I think it is pretty obvious that all of Trump's cabinet members were told to distance themselves from Russia as much as possible during their confirmation hearings, and it is coming back to bite them in the ass now.

He was being questioned about talking to Russia about the election.
You never offer up added info while being questioned by a hostile.

Sessions swore an oath to tell the whole truth.

And he did. They asked him if he'd discussed the election,he didnt.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Again, not sure how many times I have to say this... he is a lawyer and a former judge. He should know better than any of us how important it is to give an exact and straight answer, especially while under oath. He should have said "Yes, but when I met with Russian officials it had nothing to do with the campaign." When a person is coy with their answers while under oath, if it isn't out right untruthful, it borders on untruthful enough to make a normal person question whether they can trust that person in the future, and that is not something you want in the Attorney General of the United States.

I think it is pretty obvious that all of Trump's cabinet members were told to distance themselves from Russia as much as possible during their confirmation hearings, and it is coming back to bite them in the ass now.

He was being questioned about talking to Russia about the election.
You never offer up added info while being questioned by a hostile.

Sessions swore an oath to tell the whole truth.

And he did. They asked him if he'd discussed the election,he didnt.

They asked if he had talked to the Russians.