Goodbye Sessions lol. How far does this go?

[jc456]

wasn't sessions a sitting senator? are there rules against talking to a russian ambassador? please share that one

 

[Vastator]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjWk8TurrfSAhVm2oMKHRPIBeQQqUMILTAB&url=http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39136118&usg=AFQjCNFLlc1JH_9odTOHYfNrlvXVVeVntA&sig2=_bSM0Ut2OcG9t6eVXQLFIQ

and others, Dutch say. Well, T does like to get pissed...

Your latest wet dream?

 

[JBond]

He was asked if he had any contact with the Russians.

Not according to the article. It said he was asked about contact associated with the campaign. How is your reading comprehension?

Justice department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said there had been "absolutely nothing misleading about his answer" at the confirmation hearing.

"He was asked during the hearing about communications between Russia and the Trump campaign - not about meetings he took as a senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee," she said.

He was asked what he would do if anyone associated with the campaign was shown to have communications with Russia,and he volunteered that he had no communications with them

I think in the full context of the question, there isn't much here for Sessions to be worried about.

FRANKEN: OK. CNN has just published a story and I'm telling you this about a news story that's just been published. I'm not expecting you to know whether or not it's true or not. But CNN just published a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president-elect last week that included information that quote, "Russian operatives claimed to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump."


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."


Now, again, I'm telling you this as it's coming out, so you know. But if it's true, it's obviously extremely serious and 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?


SESSIONS: Senator Franken, I'm not aware of anyof those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I didn't have - did not have communications with the Russians, and I'm unable to comment on it.

Sessions said he didn't know of any Trump campaign members that had contact with the Russians... and then went on to say he has been known as a surrogate for the Trump campaign, but he didn't meet with the Russians. When in fact he had met twice during the campaign with the Russians, once at the Republican National Convention and the with the Ambassador of Russia in his office in a private meeting. Yes Sessions is on the Armed Services Committee, BUT as what brought up by others, the Ambassador didn't meet privately with any other members of the Armed Services Committee during that time period, AND whether the meeting was about the campaign or not, Sessions was working an advisory role to Trump at the time and should have said he had met with the Russians. He could have then explained the purpose of the meeting. He didn't. He lied. Then when the report came out, he lied again saying the report is false.

Fail.

Stop making up facts to fit your agenda. It comes across as petty and a bit irrational.

 

[BULLDOG]

He was asked if he had any contact with the Russians.

Not according to the article. It said he was asked about contact associated with the campaign. How is your reading comprehension?

Justice department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said there had been "absolutely nothing misleading about his answer" at the confirmation hearing.

"He was asked during the hearing about communications between Russia and the Trump campaign - not about meetings he took as a senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee," she said.

He was asked what he would do if anyone associated with the campaign was shown to have communications with Russia,and he volunteered that he had no communications with them

I think in the full context of the question, there isn't much here for Sessions to be worried about.

FRANKEN: OK. CNN has just published a story and I'm telling you this about a news story that's just been published. I'm not expecting you to know whether or not it's true or not. But CNN just published a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president-elect last week that included information that quote, "Russian operatives claimed to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump."


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."


Now, again, I'm telling you this as it's coming out, so you know. But if it's true, it's obviously extremely serious and 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?


SESSIONS: Senator Franken, I'm not aware of anyof those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I didn't have - did not have communications with the Russians, and I'm unable to comment on it.

Sessions said he didn't know of any Trump campaign members that had contact with the Russians... and then went on to say he has been known as a surrogate for the Trump campaign, but he didn't meet with the Russians. When in fact he had met twice during the campaign with the Russians, once at the Republican National Convention and the with the Ambassador of Russia in his office in a private meeting. Yes Sessions is on the Armed Services Committee, BUT as what brought up by others, the Ambassador didn't meet privately with any other members of the Armed Services Committee during that time period, AND whether the meeting was about the campaign or not, Sessions was working an advisory role to Trump at the time and should have said he had met with the Russians. He could have then explained the purpose of the meeting. He didn't. He lied. Then when the report came out, he lied again saying the report is false.

Fail.

Stop making up facts to fit your agenda. It comes across as petty and a bit irrational.

Which facts do you think were made up?

 

[OldLady]

The thing is, it doesn't matter what it appears he talked to them about. He said he hadn't talked to the Russians, when if it was innocent conversations all he had to do was explain himself. Him lying, then backing up his lies by saying the reports are lies, just tells me his meetings were not innocent ones.

According to the article, Sessions was asked in his confirmation hearing about meetings with the Trump campaign, not meetings that were the normal condition of his job in the Senate.

Your lying tells me you are biased....... but we already knew that.

What kind of "normal condition of his job in the Senate" would require him to have a private meeting with the Russian ambassador?
Although I agree the questions at the confirmation hearing were about discussions involving the campaign, and it is perfectly possible that Sessions was answering honestly, he needs to explain that meeting. If he hasn't already.

 

[OldLady]

The thing is, it doesn't matter what it appears he talked to them about. He said he hadn't talked to the Russians, when if it was innocent conversations all he had to do was explain himself. Him lying, then backing up his lies by saying the reports are lies, just tells me his meetings were not innocent ones.

. He didn't talk to them in the context for which the Democrat head hunters are hoping for. It's all about the context of the conversations as pertaining to the accusations or investigation in which is accusing someone of something. Now if what they are accusing sessions of, wasn't the context of his contact with Russian officials, then he didn't lie by saying he didn't speak to the Russians while thinking about the context in which the question was being asked of him. Nothing to see here folks.

They did not ask him if he talked to the Russians about meddling in the elections. They just asked him if he, as a member of Trump's campaign, had talked to the Russians. He had talked to the Russians while he was a member of the Trump campaign, yet he said no. It's pretty cut and dry. If he didn't talk to the Ambassador of Russia about Trump's campaign, all he had to have done was say that he had talked to the Russians, but that it had nothing to do with Trump. Sessions as a lawyer and a judge, would know this very clearly... that his answers are indeed a lie, despite how some want to read into them. His types of answers is the same type of answers that get regular citizens thrown in jail with a guilty verdict in a court of law.

Maybe he forgot? He meets a lot of people, was busy on the campaign as well. Maybe it was no big deal? Or he could be lying through his teeth and in his opinion as a lawyer, is confident no one can prove it.

 

[Slade3200]

wasn't sessions a sitting senator? are there rules against talking to a russian ambassador? please share that one

No rule against talking to a Russian ambassador... I believe their are some rules about lying to congress which is what should be investigated.

 

[baileyn45]

The thing is, it doesn't matter what it appears he talked to them about. He said he hadn't talked to the Russians, when if it was innocent conversations all he had to do was explain himself. Him lying, then backing up his lies by saying the reports are lies, just tells me his meetings were not innocent ones.

According to the article, Sessions was asked in his confirmation hearing about meetings with the Trump campaign, not meetings that were the normal condition of his job in the Senate.

Your lying tells me you are biased....... but we already knew that.

What kind of "normal condition of his job in the Senate" would require him to have a private meeting with the Russian ambassador?
Although I agree the questions at the confirmation hearing were about discussions involving the campaign, and it is perfectly possible that Sessions was answering honestly, he needs to explain that meeting. If he hasn't already.

It's my understanding he met with a bunch of ambassadors. I don;t know why this would be surprising.

 

[Slade3200]

The thing is, it doesn't matter what it appears he talked to them about. He said he hadn't talked to the Russians, when if it was innocent conversations all he had to do was explain himself. Him lying, then backing up his lies by saying the reports are lies, just tells me his meetings were not innocent ones.

According to the article, Sessions was asked in his confirmation hearing about meetings with the Trump campaign, not meetings that were the normal condition of his job in the Senate.

Your lying tells me you are biased....... but we already knew that.

What kind of "normal condition of his job in the Senate" would require him to have a private meeting with the Russian ambassador?
Although I agree the questions at the confirmation hearing were about discussions involving the campaign, and it is perfectly possible that Sessions was answering honestly, he needs to explain that meeting. If he hasn't already.

It's my understanding he met with a bunch of ambassadors. I don;t know why this would be surprising.

He met with a bunch of ambassadors at one event and also had a private meeting with the Russian ambassador in his office, which nobody else from the Senate arms committee had... The issue isn't with the fact that he had the meetings, the issue is around the fact that when asked about it he said that he had no contact with Russia.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Sessions said he didn't have meetings with Russians in the confirmation hearing. Now he's saying he did but the meeting was abut other stuff.

So he didn't have contact with them except he did.

 

[wjmacguffin]

Le sigh. Y'all Trump defenders are in high gear.

Here's what was asked of Sessions and how he responded:

Leahy: "Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?"

Sessions: "No."

This could mean Sessions talked about anything other than Trump's campaign, which is possible. But we're relying solely on his word, and the Russian ambassador he spoke to is reportedly a spy. This is not a smoking gun, but it is smoke.

Franken: "But if it's true, it's obviously extremely serious and 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?"

Sessions: "Senator Franken, I'm not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I didn't have — did not have communications with the Russians, and I'm unable to comment on it."

Here, Sessions clearly lied. Franken asked about "anyone associated" with Trump's campaign (which Sessions was by this point) having spoken to the Russian (which Sessions did). Yet Sessions clearly said he did not speak to Russians. There really is no other answer: Sessions lied.

Now, you can blame Obama for this and Hillary for that, but what the Dems did or did not do has no bearing to what Sessions said here. You can say Sessions was working in his capacity as a senator (which could explain the first comment), but that doesn't explain why he lied. And if he simply forgot about meeting a Russian ambassador when asked about meeting a Russian ambassador, then he probably doesn't have the mental fortitude needed to be the Attorney General.

 

[jc456]

He was asked if he had any contact with the Russians.

Not according to the article. It said he was asked about contact associated with the campaign. How is your reading comprehension?

Justice department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said there had been "absolutely nothing misleading about his answer" at the confirmation hearing.

"He was asked during the hearing about communications between Russia and the Trump campaign - not about meetings he took as a senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee," she said.

He was asked what he would do if anyone associated with the campaign was shown to have communications with Russia,and he volunteered that he had no communications with them

I think in the full context of the question, there isn't much here for Sessions to be worried about.

FRANKEN: OK. CNN has just published a story and I'm telling you this about a news story that's just been published. I'm not expecting you to know whether or not it's true or not. But CNN just published a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president-elect last week that included information that quote, "Russian operatives claimed to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump."


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."


Now, again, I'm telling you this as it's coming out, so you know. But if it's true, it's obviously extremely serious and 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?


SESSIONS: Senator Franken, I'm not aware of anyof those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I didn't have - did not have communications with the Russians, and I'm unable to comment on it.

Sessions said he didn't know of any Trump campaign members that had contact with the Russians... and then went on to say he has been known as a surrogate for the Trump campaign, but he didn't meet with the Russians. When in fact he had met twice during the campaign with the Russians, once at the Republican National Convention and the with the Ambassador of Russia in his office in a private meeting. Yes Sessions is on the Armed Services Committee, BUT as what brought up by others, the Ambassador didn't meet privately with any other members of the Armed Services Committee during that time period, AND whether the meeting was about the campaign or not, Sessions was working an advisory role to Trump at the time and should have said he had met with the Russians. He could have then explained the purpose of the meeting. He didn't. He lied. Then when the report came out, he lied again saying the report is false.

 

[jc456]

Sessions said he didn't have meetings with Russians in the confirmation hearing. Now he's saying he did but the meeting was abut other stuff.

So he didn't have contact with them except he did.

well you need the question he was asked. got that?

 

[francoHFW]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjWk8TurrfSAhVm2oMKHRPIBeQQqUMILTAB&url=http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39136118&usg=AFQjCNFLlc1JH_9odTOHYfNrlvXVVeVntA&sig2=_bSM0Ut2OcG9t6eVXQLFIQ

and others, Dutch say. Well, T does like to get pissed...

Your latest wet dream?

Try a real news channel, dupe. Or Shep.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Sessions said he didn't have meetings with Russians in the confirmation hearing. Now he's saying he did but the meeting was abut other stuff.

So he didn't have contact with them except he did.

well you need the question he was asked. got that?

You need a point. Got that?

 

[BluesLegend]

I'm book marking this thread so I can mock franco later when Sessions remains the AG. The desperation on the left is hilarious, poor libs

 

[Siete]

Le sigh. Y'all Trump defenders are in high gear.

Here's what was asked of Sessions and how he responded:

Leahy: "Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?"

Sessions: "No."

This could mean Sessions talked about anything other than Trump's campaign, which is possible. But we're relying solely on his word, and the Russian ambassador he spoke to is reportedly a spy. This is not a smoking gun, but it is smoke.

Franken: "But if it's true, it's obviously extremely serious and 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?"

Sessions: "Senator Franken, I'm not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I didn't have — did not have communications with the Russians, and I'm unable to comment on it."

Here, Sessions clearly lied. Franken asked about "anyone associated" with Trump's campaign (which Sessions was by this point) having spoken to the Russian (which Sessions did). Yet Sessions clearly said he did not speak to Russians. There really is no other answer: Sessions lied.

Now, you can blame Obama for this and Hillary for that, but what the Dems did or did not do has no bearing to what Sessions said here. You can say Sessions was working in his capacity as a senator (which could explain the first comment), but that doesn't explain why he lied. And if he simply forgot about meeting a Russian ambassador when asked about meeting a Russian ambassador, then he probably doesn't have the mental fortitude needed to be the Attorney General.

you can reference facts until you turn purple, and the Russian loving Trumpbots won't ever accept them.

they have become Cossaks loyal to their homeland,Communist Russia.

 

[OldLady]

The thing is, it doesn't matter what it appears he talked to them about. He said he hadn't talked to the Russians, when if it was innocent conversations all he had to do was explain himself. Him lying, then backing up his lies by saying the reports are lies, just tells me his meetings were not innocent ones.

According to the article, Sessions was asked in his confirmation hearing about meetings with the Trump campaign, not meetings that were the normal condition of his job in the Senate.

Your lying tells me you are biased....... but we already knew that.

What kind of "normal condition of his job in the Senate" would require him to have a private meeting with the Russian ambassador?
Although I agree the questions at the confirmation hearing were about discussions involving the campaign, and it is perfectly possible that Sessions was answering honestly, he needs to explain that meeting. If he hasn't already.

It's my understanding he met with a bunch of ambassadors. I don;t know why this would be surprising.

I wish I had more details, but ONE meeting was a private meeting in his office with Ambassador whats-his-name. The OTHER meeting was with a bunch of ambassadors. The private meeting is the one I'd like him to explain.

 

[owebo]

The thing is, it doesn't matter what it appears he talked to them about. He said he hadn't talked to the Russians, when if it was innocent conversations all he had to do was explain himself. Him lying, then backing up his lies by saying the reports are lies, just tells me his meetings were not innocent ones.

According to the article, Sessions was asked in his confirmation hearing about meetings with the Trump campaign, not meetings that were the normal condition of his job in the Senate.

Your lying tells me you are biased....... but we already knew that.

What kind of "normal condition of his job in the Senate" would require him to have a private meeting with the Russian ambassador?
Although I agree the questions at the confirmation hearing were about discussions involving the campaign, and it is perfectly possible that Sessions was answering honestly, he needs to explain that meeting. If he hasn't already.

It's my understanding he met with a bunch of ambassadors. I don;t know why this would be surprising.

I wish I had more details, but ONE meeting was a private meeting in his office with Ambassador whats-his-name. The OTHER meeting was with a bunch of ambassadors. The private meeting is the one I'd like him to explain.

You mean as Senator?

 

[jc456]

Sessions said he didn't have meetings with Russians in the confirmation hearing. Now he's saying he did but the meeting was abut other stuff.

So he didn't have contact with them except he did.

well you need the question he was asked. got that?

You need a point. Got that?

well it depends what they asked and his answer. Don't you think? if the word campaign was in the question, then his answer is spot on. what's wrong with you that you don't even know that?