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

[Mac1958]

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.
.

He did lie about ever meeting with Russians. But that's OK with you because ....America first!

What was the lie?

And in your answer, please include Franken's full question and Sessions' full answer, because that will provide proper context.

Or is proper context not important to you because.... never Trump!
.

I just told you he lied about meeting with the Russians and you think if you keep repeating "what was the lie?" then what you quoted disappears.

Fortunately, some other Dems and I are far beyond this stuff in other threads. They understand and admit that Sessions was speaking in the context of Franken's question. They understand that the real question is what Sessions and the Russians spoke about when they were meeting in his capacity as a member of the foreign relations committee. They know there's not enough proof yet.

But you keep flopping around in your partisan dishonesty all you want. Not interested. I'm sure there are some right wingers who'd love to play.
.

 

[ClosedCaption]

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.
.

He did lie about ever meeting with Russians. But that's OK with you because ....America first!

What was the lie?

And in your answer, please include Franken's full question and Sessions' full answer, because that will provide proper context.

Or is proper context not important to you because.... never Trump!
.

I just told you he lied about meeting with the Russians and you think if you keep repeating "what was the lie?" then what you quoted disappears.

Fortunately, some other Dems and I are far beyond this stuff in other threads. They understand and admit that Sessions was speaking in the context of Franken's question. They understand that the real question is what Sessions and the Russians spoke about when they were meeting in his capacity as a member of the foreign relations committee. They know there's not enough proof yet.

But you keep flopping around in your partisan dishonesty all you want. Not interested. I'm sure there are some right wingers who'd love to play.
.

That's a nice story about how others agree with you and they are nameless. Very convincing. But I again told you the lie and you can't address it.

Concession noted.

 

[Mac1958]

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

Weak.
.

He did lie about ever meeting with Russians. But that's OK with you because ....America first!

What was the lie?

And in your answer, please include Franken's full question and Sessions' full answer, because that will provide proper context.

Or is proper context not important to you because.... never Trump!
.

I just told you he lied about meeting with the Russians and you think if you keep repeating "what was the lie?" then what you quoted disappears.

Fortunately, some other Dems and I are far beyond this stuff in other threads. They understand and admit that Sessions was speaking in the context of Franken's question. They understand that the real question is what Sessions and the Russians spoke about when they were meeting in his capacity as a member of the foreign relations committee. They know there's not enough proof yet.

But you keep flopping around in your partisan dishonesty all you want. Not interested. I'm sure there are some right wingers who'd love to play.
.

That's a nice story about how others agree with you and they are nameless. Very convincing. But I again told you the lie and you can't address it.

Concession noted.

Fabulous.
.

 

[bendog]

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.

I think the question is how could he remember and tell the committee about a Russia trip he had years ago, and just not remember meeting their ambassador - WHO IS A SPY - a few months back DURING the campaign while travelling on CAMPAIGN dollars?

It just doesn't add up. It's beginning to be a pattern. Flynn - why did he lie? Jared? Why did Preibus lie about no contact? Why had Trump lied. They all say "no contact" when there was contact.

 

[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.

I think the question is how could he remember and tell the committee about a Russia trip he had years ago, and just not remember meeting their ambassador - WHO IS A SPY - a few months back DURING the campaign while travelling on CAMPAIGN dollars?

It just doesn't add up. It's beginning to be a pattern. Flynn - why did he lie? Jared? Why did Preibus lie about no contact? Why had Trump lied. They all say "no contact" when there was contact.

^^^ Just so.

 

[martybegan]

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.

You can't unwittingly commit perjury, the crime itself requires intent to commit it.

 

[martybegan]

He admitted that he shouldn't have done it = yes he did! He should be charged and thrown out of power.

Nope.

But keep making mountains out of molehills, and keep having your own side be caught doing the same thing afterwards as McCaskill did.

 

[dcbl]

anyone that has even the teensy tiniest bit of common sense knows that Jeff Sessions did not lie

Of course, that eliminates a large percentage of our friends on the left and in the media...

 

[JakeStarkey]

anyone that has even the teensy tiniest bit of common sense knows that Jeff Sessions did not lie

Of course, that eliminates a large percentage of our friends on the left and in the media...

That is typically Alt Right fake analysis. Move along, please.

The investigation will make that determination.

 

[bendog]

anyone that has even the teensy tiniest bit of common sense knows that Jeff Sessions did not lie

Of course, that eliminates a large percentage of our friends on the left and in the media...

How couldn't he have lied? He was asked if he met with the Russians as a campaign surrogate. He said no. But he'd met them years ago while on church trip or some fucking nonsense. When he'd met with the Russian ambassador just months ago while travelling on campaign funds.

 

[dcbl]

The investigation will make that determination.

won't need hope though - there is nothing to this story

BTW - if you are looking for a job, I hear they will be hiring for construction workers to help build a big beautiful wall on the US southern border soon!

 

[hadit]

I dont think a perjury charge would stick.

But time will tell.

Making something stick is not the point. In fact, it would just be icing on the cake.

The point is to do everything possible, be it moral, legal, ethical or not, to hamper Trump's ability to get things done and especially to prevent him from doing anything that might be construed as successful. Thus, the goal is to tie him up with endless hyperventilating faux outrage at anything that can be twisted to look scandalous and leave the country in misery to hamper his chances at re-election. Winning is all that matters, and Sessions is just the target of the day. Remove him and they'll look for someone else.

The difference now is, Trump is not afraid to get in the mud like previous Republicans. It will be interesting.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"hyperventilating faux outrage", such as DCBL, is not the point.

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

 

[dcbl]

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

no, it is not

what he did was answer a ridiculous question that was based on a false story truthfully

what AG Lynch did (by colluding with Bill Clinton) was actually a problem

this is a false flag & most Americans realize it

 

[bendog]

"hyperventilating faux outrage", such as DCBL, is not the point.

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

.

It's inexplicable is what it is. There is nothing wrong with him, or Flynn, or anyone having contact with Russian officials. There'd not have been anything wrong with Flynn actually asking "how can we resolve the Ukraine dispute?" There wouldn't have been anything wrong with Sessions making that same inquiry. Even under the Logan act, that nobody follows anyway, there has to be some offer of we'll do this if you do that. No one in their right mind would trust Putin enough to make a deal that wasn't enforceable or that they could come to the public and say "Putin lied and is going back on his word."

So why didn't Sessions just say "I met with the ambassador twice, but we just talked about generalities and how we could have better communications.?" It's that fact that Sessions lied

 

[Rambunctious]

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....

 

[dcbl]

So why didn't Sessions just say "I met with the ambassador twice, but we just talked about generalities and how we could have better communications.?" It's that fact that Sessions lied

because he was asked about meeting with Russian officials in the capacity as a Trump surrogate

no lie was told

 

[Care4all]

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

if the conversations were about building a hotel in moscow and not about the campaign when the campaign members were talking with the Russian operatives, would that have been ok, for any of the team, to say, NO, I DID NOT SPEAK with the Russians, just because the Campaigners were speaking about a new Trump hotel in Moscow?

 

[Rambunctious]

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

 

[radical right]

anyone that has even the teensy tiniest bit of common sense knows that Jeff Sessions did not lie.

Everybody knows Sessions lied, the question is whether it was perjury.