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

[martybegan]

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

No, he isn't.

 

[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".

 

[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.

 

[jc456]

They're pretending Franken asked something like "did you meet with Russians at any time at all, either in or out of campaign surrogate context?"
.

Lets agree on the question.
Franken asked what he would do if he found evidence that anyone affiliated (advisers, surrogates, campaign officials, trump himself) with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government.
And since he didn't mean to go back decades, Franken limited the timespan to "in the course of the campaign" or between June 16, 2015 and Nov 8, 2016.

you're pressing too hard and coming up with crickets.

 

[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.

 

[radical right]

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".

Sessions was a Trump adviser. which means he was affiliated with the Trump campaign. Wasn't that simple? Franken asked about anybody affiliated with the Trump campaign, just read the question.

 

[jc456]

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".

Sessions was a Trump adviser. which means he was affiliated with the Trump campaign. Wasn't that simple? Franken asked about anybody affiliated with the Trump campaign, just read the question.

no that isn't what he said. he asked what he'd do. i see you let go of the line your were holding.

 

[radical right]

no that isn't what he said. he asked what he'd do. i see you let go of the line your were holding.

Lets agree on the question.
Franken asked what he would do if he found evidence that anyone affiliated (advisers, surrogates, campaign officials, trump himself) with the Trump campaign communited with the Russian government.
And since he didn't mean to go back decades, Franken limited the timespan to "in the course of the campaign" or between June 16, 2015 and Nov 8, 2016.

 

[jc456]

no that isn't what he said. he asked what he'd do. i see you let go of the line your were holding.

Lets agree on the question.
Franken asked what he would do if he found evidence that anyone affiliated (advisers, surrogates, campaign officials, trump himself) with the Trump campaign communited with the Russian government.
And since he didn't mean to go back decades, Franken limited the timespan to "in the course of the campaign" or between June 16, 2015 and Nov 8, 2016.

where are you going, you already did this, so what is it you're going for here? can you cut to the chase?

 

[Eloy]

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.

 

[Mac1958]

Lets agree on the question.
Franken asked what he would do if he found evidence that anyone affiliated (advisers, surrogates, campaign officials, trump himself) with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government.
And since he didn't mean to go back decades, Franken limited the timespan to "in the course of the campaign" or between June 16, 2015 and Nov 8, 2016.

Here is the question, cut and pasted: "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?"

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.
.

 

[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

 

[radical right]

where are you going, you already did this, so what is it you're going for here? can you cut to the chase?

You seemed to back off agreeing with the question

no that isn't what he said. he asked what he'd do. i see you let go of the line your were holding.

Are you back on board with what the question was?

 

[radical right]

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.

 

[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.

 

[radical right]

As I was going to St. Ives,
I met a man with seven wives,
Each wife had seven sacks,
Each sack had seven cats,
Each cat had seven kits:
Kits, cats, sacks, and wives,
How many were there going to St. Ives?

That is the question, anything said before doesn't matter.

 

[Reasonable]

 

[Eloy]

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.

 

[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.

 

[radical right]

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.