Here Are The Facts On The Jeff Sessions Controversy

[Claudette]

This Sessions thing is a whole lot of nothing. A lot of smoke with absolutely no fire.

The Dems are grasping at straws.

Shumer should be more concerned with the 2018 elections.

 

[Mac1958]

Would anyone ELSE like to address the following statement, in bold?

Sarah Isgur Flores, a Justice Department spokesperson, said Sessions met with Kislyak in his capacity as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and not on behalf of the Trump campaign. She says Sessions had 25 such meetings with envoys from foreign powers during that period, including the Sir Peter John Westmacott, the British ambassador, and Kenichirō Sasae, the Indian ambassador.

“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,” Flores said.

.

And, even his meeting as a Senator from the Armed Service Committee as he stated....

Out of ALL THE MEMBERS of the Armed Forces Committee, why did the Russian Ambassador CHOOSE Sessions to met with and NOT any of the other Armed service committee senators?

Could it be that the Russian Ambassador chose Sessions BECAUSE Sessions was PART pf the Trump team? YOU BETCHA!

And at this time of the meeting, all over the news was the Russians hacking the DNC....yet Sessions chose to met with the Russian SPY anyway...yes, the Ambassador was a KNOWN spy to us.

Okay, so do we know that Sessions is the only member of the committee the guy met with?

And if so, has that question been addressed?
.

And pay attention, this doesn't say in September of 2016, this says in ALL of 2016.

"Attorney General Jeff Sessions is in hot water over revelations that he met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak twice last year, despite seeming to have said twice that no such meetings took place. Sessions’s defense hinges on the idea that the meetings had nothing to do with the 2016 campaign or with his work as a Trump adviser, but related instead to his status as a US senator and a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

One problem here: Of the 26 members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, 25 of them told the Washington Post they had zero meetings with Kislyak in 2016."


Follow
Adam Entous

✔@adamentous
We reached all 26 members of the 2016 Armed Services Committee to see who met with Russian envoy Kislyak in 2016. Sessions was the only one.

2:55 PM - 2 Mar 2017

The other 25 senators on Sessions's committee say they had no meetings with Russian ambassador in 2016

Great. And once we know that they talked about the campaign, we'll know he lied.
.

You realize that it is an Armed Services Committee right? There are 26 of them.... and they don't make decisions on their own, it is done as a group. So for the Russian Ambassador to be talking JUST to Sessions about something that involves the entire committee, that is about as a lame excuse as they get. What good is talking to 1/26th of a committee? Use some common sense here.

I'm not arguing with any of that. But regardless of what it looks like, proof is needed. Until then it's all political noise.
.

 

[AntonToo]

The USSR used to own the Democrat Party. In 1984, Ted Kennedy sold it to them to help beat Reagan. After the USSR collapsed they had to sell everything including their interest in the Democrat which Soros picked up for a few cents on the dollar

This is 2017 Frankie, Sessions lied UNDER OATH to Sen Franken and to all the American people.

He's top cop in this Nation, we don't need or want a perjurer, and weasel as our top cop.....

There was no perjury. You can say it as many times as you want, but all it proves is your mental disorder.

Hell, read the OP. Even Shumer says you lie.

watch it POP, it's only a minute and a half

SESSIONS LIED THRU HIS TEETH

there is no getting around it...it's on tape, Pop

AND it was INTENTIONAL, with purpose to deceive, so he could gt consent of the Senate.

Session wasn't a Trump surrogate and Franken is quoting Fake News

You are LAUGHABLE

"I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians." - SESSIONS during testimony to congress.

Clearly sessions accepts that he was a surrogate.

 

[ptbw forever]

Would anyone ELSE like to address the following statement, in bold?

Sarah Isgur Flores, a Justice Department spokesperson, said Sessions met with Kislyak in his capacity as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and not on behalf of the Trump campaign. She says Sessions had 25 such meetings with envoys from foreign powers during that period, including the Sir Peter John Westmacott, the British ambassador, and Kenichirō Sasae, the Indian ambassador.

“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,” Flores said.

.

And, even his meeting as a Senator from the Armed Service Committee as he stated....

Out of ALL THE MEMBERS of the Armed Forces Committee, why did the Russian Ambassador CHOOSE Sessions to met with and NOT any of the other Armed service committee senators?

Could it be that the Russian Ambassador chose Sessions BECAUSE Sessions was PART pf the Trump team? YOU BETCHA!

And at this time of the meeting, all over the news was the Russians hacking the DNC....yet Sessions chose to met with the Russian SPY anyway...yes, the Ambassador was a KNOWN spy to us.

Okay, so do we know that Sessions is the only member of the committee the guy met with?

And if so, has that question been addressed?
.

And pay attention, this doesn't say in September of 2016, this says in ALL of 2016.

"Attorney General Jeff Sessions is in hot water over revelations that he met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak twice last year, despite seeming to have said twice that no such meetings took place. Sessions’s defense hinges on the idea that the meetings had nothing to do with the 2016 campaign or with his work as a Trump adviser, but related instead to his status as a US senator and a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

One problem here: Of the 26 members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, 25 of them told the Washington Post they had zero meetings with Kislyak in 2016."


Follow
Adam Entous

✔@adamentous
We reached all 26 members of the 2016 Armed Services Committee to see who met with Russian envoy Kislyak in 2016. Sessions was the only one.

2:55 PM - 2 Mar 2017

The other 25 senators on Sessions's committee say they had no meetings with Russian ambassador in 2016

That is no longer true....

Analysis | Sen. McCaskill’s misfired tweet on contacts with Russian ambassador

 

[AntonToo]

Would anyone ELSE like to address the following statement, in bold?

Sarah Isgur Flores, a Justice Department spokesperson, said Sessions met with Kislyak in his capacity as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and not on behalf of the Trump campaign. She says Sessions had 25 such meetings with envoys from foreign powers during that period, including the Sir Peter John Westmacott, the British ambassador, and Kenichirō Sasae, the Indian ambassador.

“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,” Flores said.

.

And, even his meeting as a Senator from the Armed Service Committee as he stated....

Out of ALL THE MEMBERS of the Armed Forces Committee, why did the Russian Ambassador CHOOSE Sessions to met with and NOT any of the other Armed service committee senators?

Could it be that the Russian Ambassador chose Sessions BECAUSE Sessions was PART pf the Trump team? YOU BETCHA!

And at this time of the meeting, all over the news was the Russians hacking the DNC....yet Sessions chose to met with the Russian SPY anyway...yes, the Ambassador was a KNOWN spy to us.

Okay, so do we know that Sessions is the only member of the committee the guy met with?

And if so, has that question been addressed?
.

And pay attention, this doesn't say in September of 2016, this says in ALL of 2016.

"Attorney General Jeff Sessions is in hot water over revelations that he met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak twice last year, despite seeming to have said twice that no such meetings took place. Sessions’s defense hinges on the idea that the meetings had nothing to do with the 2016 campaign or with his work as a Trump adviser, but related instead to his status as a US senator and a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

One problem here: Of the 26 members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, 25 of them told the Washington Post they had zero meetings with Kislyak in 2016."


Follow
Adam Entous

✔@adamentous
We reached all 26 members of the 2016 Armed Services Committee to see who met with Russian envoy Kislyak in 2016. Sessions was the only one.

2:55 PM - 2 Mar 2017

The other 25 senators on Sessions's committee say they had no meetings with Russian ambassador in 2016

That is no longer true....

Analysis | Sen. McCaskill’s misfired tweet on contacts with Russian ambassador

BS. In that time frame of campaign Kislyak met with Sessions, not others on Armed Committee who had nothing to do with campaign.

 

[Lewdog]

Would anyone ELSE like to address the following statement, in bold?

Sarah Isgur Flores, a Justice Department spokesperson, said Sessions met with Kislyak in his capacity as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and not on behalf of the Trump campaign. She says Sessions had 25 such meetings with envoys from foreign powers during that period, including the Sir Peter John Westmacott, the British ambassador, and Kenichirō Sasae, the Indian ambassador.

“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,” Flores said.

.

And, even his meeting as a Senator from the Armed Service Committee as he stated....

Out of ALL THE MEMBERS of the Armed Forces Committee, why did the Russian Ambassador CHOOSE Sessions to met with and NOT any of the other Armed service committee senators?

Could it be that the Russian Ambassador chose Sessions BECAUSE Sessions was PART pf the Trump team? YOU BETCHA!

And at this time of the meeting, all over the news was the Russians hacking the DNC....yet Sessions chose to met with the Russian SPY anyway...yes, the Ambassador was a KNOWN spy to us.

Okay, so do we know that Sessions is the only member of the committee the guy met with?

And if so, has that question been addressed?
.

And pay attention, this doesn't say in September of 2016, this says in ALL of 2016.

"Attorney General Jeff Sessions is in hot water over revelations that he met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak twice last year, despite seeming to have said twice that no such meetings took place. Sessions’s defense hinges on the idea that the meetings had nothing to do with the 2016 campaign or with his work as a Trump adviser, but related instead to his status as a US senator and a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

One problem here: Of the 26 members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, 25 of them told the Washington Post they had zero meetings with Kislyak in 2016."


Follow
Adam Entous

✔@adamentous
We reached all 26 members of the 2016 Armed Services Committee to see who met with Russian envoy Kislyak in 2016. Sessions was the only one.

2:55 PM - 2 Mar 2017

The other 25 senators on Sessions's committee say they had no meetings with Russian ambassador in 2016

That is no longer true....

Analysis | Sen. McCaskill’s misfired tweet on contacts with Russian ambassador

You need to read that again, and then read her rebuttal. She's never met privately with the Russian Ambassador as a member of the Armed Service Committee like Sessions did.

 

[Mac1958]

The USSR used to own the Democrat Party. In 1984, Ted Kennedy sold it to them to help beat Reagan. After the USSR collapsed they had to sell everything including their interest in the Democrat which Soros picked up for a few cents on the dollar

This is 2017 Frankie, Sessions lied UNDER OATH to Sen Franken and to all the American people.

He's top cop in this Nation, we don't need or want a perjurer, and weasel as our top cop.....

There was no perjury. You can say it as many times as you want, but all it proves is your mental disorder.

Hell, read the OP. Even Shumer says you lie.

watch it POP, it's only a minute and a half

SESSIONS LIED THRU HIS TEETH

there is no getting around it...it's on tape, Pop

AND it was INTENTIONAL, with purpose to deceive, so he could gt consent of the Senate.

Session wasn't a Trump surrogate and Franken is quoting Fake News

You are LAUGHABLE

"I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians." - SESSIONS during testimony to congress.

Clearly sessions accepts that he was a surrogate.

A reasonable person could also conclude that Sessions was saying ""I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians in that capacity." Since that was the context of BOTH the question AND the answer.

So some proof would be needed that he met with the Russian in the capacity of a surrogate.

Not enough proof. For a reasonable person.
.

 

[wjmacguffin]

OK, maybe some conservatives here can help me understand something.

Here's the quote from Sessions' conversation with Franken:

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."

From what I can tell, 1) Sessions talked to the Russian ambassador and 2) Sessions was affiliated with the Trump campaign at that time. Even if Sessions only discussed senatorial stuff, it still sounds like lying under oath. Franken didn't ask if Sessions coordinated Trump's campaign with Russia -- he only asked if there was communication, which there was.

Why do y'all feel this is not lying? (I swear that I'm trying to understand and this is not bait or something similar.)

 

[NYcarbineer]

To understand how the RW'ers REALLY view the Sessions scandal, imagine what they'd be saying if he were a Democrat.

 

[Care4all]

Flores is LYING

Okay, what did Sessions and the Russian guy talk about when they met?

If we have some proof, then we'll know Sessions and Flores are lying.
.

Wait wait,

Flores is LYING

Okay, what did Sessions and the Russian guy talk about when they met?

If we have some proof, then we'll know Sessions and Flores are lying.
.

They talked about SOMETHING WORTH LYING ABOUT.

So you don't know what they talked about, and you're just ignoring the fact that Sessions was on the Foreign Relations Committee.

This is the same silliness the Republicans tried to pull on Obama: Take a kernel of truth and just make the rest up for political advantage.

This is why partisans have zero credibility.
.

I don't know what they talked about but here is what I do know:

1. Sessions intentionally misled the congress, there is not a single other explanation of what happened that makes any fucking sense. He didn't misunderstand the question, he knew that congress certainly was interested to hear of ANY meetings, in whatever capacity between him and the Russian and he clearly mislead everyone that heard his testimony to think that he never met with Russian operatives during campaign

2. At the time Sessions and Kislyak meetings Russians had ONE PRIME AGENDA - the campaign for the next president of the United States, this bullshit about how Kislyak contacted no one else on the Armed services Committee except for the person at the core of Trump's campaign and did so to chit-chat about number of planes or something is reason defying.

3. Sessions was not the only one lying, there also Flynn who ALSO was lying in very similar matter about the meetings with Russians. It is VERY tough to not start seeing that there is a highly conspicuous REASON for the lies.

Sessions used precisely the same word - "surrogate" - as Franken did. There was no obfuscation, and Franken was satisfied with the answer. At least until this "controversy" came up. Sessions' answer was clear and in context. It was a little lawyer-speaky, but that's par for the course in DC.

Yes, on the spectrum, this leans toward being fishy. And I'd certainly like to know why these Russia connections keep popping up. But that doesn't make everything these people say is a lie. I would want to be considered innocent until proven guilty, so would you, and there's not enough proof yet - outside of the lowered standards of partisan politics.

Let's not forget the constant screaming of the Republicans over every last fucking possible thing during the Obama administration. It just became noise after a while, a joke. I know how much the two ends of the spectrum love to emulate each other, but it really isn't helpful.
.

Franken was satisfied and so was the world, including me, is because SESSIONS LIED and said he did not have any contact, ZERO CONTACT, with any Russian connected to the Russian government/Putin.

IF Sessions had not LIED and said he had met with the Russians TWICE, there would have been more questions by the Senate on it, and more things he would have neded to answer and depending on those answers, MAY NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN CONSENT of the Senate to become ATTNY General of the USA.

 

[Mac1958]

OK, maybe some conservatives here can help me understand something.

Here's the quote from Sessions' conversation with Franken:

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."

From what I can tell, 1) Sessions talked to the Russian ambassador and 2) Sessions was affiliated with the Trump campaign at that time. Even if Sessions only discussed senatorial stuff, it still sounds like lying under oath. Franken didn't ask if Sessions coordinated Trump's campaign with Russia -- he only asked if there was communication, which there was.

Why do y'all feel this is not lying? (I swear that I'm trying to understand and this is not bait or something similar.)

I voted against Trump, and I'm still pretty horrified by the guy, but this is what I think:

His point in answering Franken's question - which was clearly in the context of whether Sessions met with the Russian guy as a Trump surrogate - was that he met with the Russian guy in the capacity as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. That holds up perfectly well to reason.

Unless it is proven that their meeting was indeed about the campaign, then there is no there there. If there is video or audio or meeting notes, then all there is, is conjecture. And it will look political in nature.
.

 

[Lewdog]

Okay, what did Sessions and the Russian guy talk about when they met?

If we have some proof, then we'll know Sessions and Flores are lying.
.

Wait wait,

Okay, what did Sessions and the Russian guy talk about when they met?

If we have some proof, then we'll know Sessions and Flores are lying.
.

They talked about SOMETHING WORTH LYING ABOUT.

So you don't know what they talked about, and you're just ignoring the fact that Sessions was on the Foreign Relations Committee.

This is the same silliness the Republicans tried to pull on Obama: Take a kernel of truth and just make the rest up for political advantage.

This is why partisans have zero credibility.
.

I don't know what they talked about but here is what I do know:

1. Sessions intentionally misled the congress, there is not a single other explanation of what happened that makes any fucking sense. He didn't misunderstand the question, he knew that congress certainly was interested to hear of ANY meetings, in whatever capacity between him and the Russian and he clearly mislead everyone that heard his testimony to think that he never met with Russian operatives during campaign

2. At the time Sessions and Kislyak meetings Russians had ONE PRIME AGENDA - the campaign for the next president of the United States, this bullshit about how Kislyak contacted no one else on the Armed services Committee except for the person at the core of Trump's campaign and did so to chit-chat about number of planes or something is reason defying.

3. Sessions was not the only one lying, there also Flynn who ALSO was lying in very similar matter about the meetings with Russians. It is VERY tough to not start seeing that there is a highly conspicuous REASON for the lies.

Sessions used precisely the same word - "surrogate" - as Franken did. There was no obfuscation, and Franken was satisfied with the answer. At least until this "controversy" came up. Sessions' answer was clear and in context. It was a little lawyer-speaky, but that's par for the course in DC.

Yes, on the spectrum, this leans toward being fishy. And I'd certainly like to know why these Russia connections keep popping up. But that doesn't make everything these people say is a lie. I would want to be considered innocent until proven guilty, so would you, and there's not enough proof yet - outside of the lowered standards of partisan politics.

Let's not forget the constant screaming of the Republicans over every last fucking possible thing during the Obama administration. It just became noise after a while, a joke. I know how much the two ends of the spectrum love to emulate each other, but it really isn't helpful.
.

Franken was satisfied and so was the world, including me, is because SESSIONS LIED and said he did not have any contact, ZERO CONTACT, with any Russian connected to the Russian government/Putin.

IF Sessions had not LIED and said he had met with the Russians TWICE, there would have been more questions by the Senate on it, and more things he would have neded to answer and depending on those answers, MAY NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN CONSENT of the Senate to become ATTNY General of the USA.

As I said earlier in a thread, I guarantee that all of Trump's cabinet members were told to try and avoid talking about Russia and Russian contacts as much as possible, this time it just happened to come back to bite them in the ass.

 

[Mac1958]

Okay, what did Sessions and the Russian guy talk about when they met?

If we have some proof, then we'll know Sessions and Flores are lying.
.

Wait wait,

Okay, what did Sessions and the Russian guy talk about when they met?

If we have some proof, then we'll know Sessions and Flores are lying.
.

They talked about SOMETHING WORTH LYING ABOUT.

So you don't know what they talked about, and you're just ignoring the fact that Sessions was on the Foreign Relations Committee.

This is the same silliness the Republicans tried to pull on Obama: Take a kernel of truth and just make the rest up for political advantage.

This is why partisans have zero credibility.
.

I don't know what they talked about but here is what I do know:

1. Sessions intentionally misled the congress, there is not a single other explanation of what happened that makes any fucking sense. He didn't misunderstand the question, he knew that congress certainly was interested to hear of ANY meetings, in whatever capacity between him and the Russian and he clearly mislead everyone that heard his testimony to think that he never met with Russian operatives during campaign

2. At the time Sessions and Kislyak meetings Russians had ONE PRIME AGENDA - the campaign for the next president of the United States, this bullshit about how Kislyak contacted no one else on the Armed services Committee except for the person at the core of Trump's campaign and did so to chit-chat about number of planes or something is reason defying.

3. Sessions was not the only one lying, there also Flynn who ALSO was lying in very similar matter about the meetings with Russians. It is VERY tough to not start seeing that there is a highly conspicuous REASON for the lies.

Sessions used precisely the same word - "surrogate" - as Franken did. There was no obfuscation, and Franken was satisfied with the answer. At least until this "controversy" came up. Sessions' answer was clear and in context. It was a little lawyer-speaky, but that's par for the course in DC.

Yes, on the spectrum, this leans toward being fishy. And I'd certainly like to know why these Russia connections keep popping up. But that doesn't make everything these people say is a lie. I would want to be considered innocent until proven guilty, so would you, and there's not enough proof yet - outside of the lowered standards of partisan politics.

Let's not forget the constant screaming of the Republicans over every last fucking possible thing during the Obama administration. It just became noise after a while, a joke. I know how much the two ends of the spectrum love to emulate each other, but it really isn't helpful.
.

Franken was satisfied and so was the world, including me, is because SESSIONS LIED and said he did not have any contact, ZERO CONTACT, with any Russian connected to the Russian government/Putin.

IF Sessions had not LIED and said he had met with the Russians TWICE, there would have been more questions by the Senate on it, and more things he would have neded to answer and depending on those answers, MAY NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN CONSENT of the Senate to become ATTNY General of the USA.

Please see post 71.
.

 

[AntonToo]

Okay, what did Sessions and the Russian guy talk about when they met?

If we have some proof, then we'll know Sessions and Flores are lying.
.

Wait wait,

Okay, what did Sessions and the Russian guy talk about when they met?

If we have some proof, then we'll know Sessions and Flores are lying.
.

They talked about SOMETHING WORTH LYING ABOUT.

So you don't know what they talked about, and you're just ignoring the fact that Sessions was on the Foreign Relations Committee.

This is the same silliness the Republicans tried to pull on Obama: Take a kernel of truth and just make the rest up for political advantage.

This is why partisans have zero credibility.
.

I don't know what they talked about but here is what I do know:

1. Sessions intentionally misled the congress, there is not a single other explanation of what happened that makes any fucking sense. He didn't misunderstand the question, he knew that congress certainly was interested to hear of ANY meetings, in whatever capacity between him and the Russian and he clearly mislead everyone that heard his testimony to think that he never met with Russian operatives during campaign

2. At the time Sessions and Kislyak meetings Russians had ONE PRIME AGENDA - the campaign for the next president of the United States, this bullshit about how Kislyak contacted no one else on the Armed services Committee except for the person at the core of Trump's campaign and did so to chit-chat about number of planes or something is reason defying.

3. Sessions was not the only one lying, there also Flynn who ALSO was lying in very similar matter about the meetings with Russians. It is VERY tough to not start seeing that there is a highly conspicuous REASON for the lies.

Sessions used precisely the same word - "surrogate" - as Franken did. There was no obfuscation, and Franken was satisfied with the answer. At least until this "controversy" came up. Sessions' answer was clear and in context. It was a little lawyer-speaky, but that's par for the course in DC.

Yes, on the spectrum, this leans toward being fishy. And I'd certainly like to know why these Russia connections keep popping up. But that doesn't make everything these people say is a lie. I would want to be considered innocent until proven guilty, so would you, and there's not enough proof yet - outside of the lowered standards of partisan politics.

Let's not forget the constant screaming of the Republicans over every last fucking possible thing during the Obama administration. It just became noise after a while, a joke. I know how much the two ends of the spectrum love to emulate each other, but it really isn't helpful.
.

Franken was satisfied and so was the world, including me, is because SESSIONS LIED and said he did not have any contact, ZERO CONTACT, with any Russian connected to the Russian government/Putin.

IF Sessions had not LIED and said he had met with the Russians TWICE, there would have been more questions by the Senate on it, and more things he would have neded to answer and depending on those answers, MAY NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN CONSENT of the Senate to become ATTNY General of the USA.

IF their discussions were completely appropriate, there would be no reason to not clearly disclose them.

IF it wasn't, would there would be EVERY reason to avoid getting questioned about those conversations under OATH.

Sessions was avoiding.

 

[Care4all]

OK, maybe some conservatives here can help me understand something.

Here's the quote from Sessions' conversation with Franken:

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."

From what I can tell, 1) Sessions talked to the Russian ambassador and 2) Sessions was affiliated with the Trump campaign at that time. Even if Sessions only discussed senatorial stuff, it still sounds like lying under oath. Franken didn't ask if Sessions coordinated Trump's campaign with Russia -- he only asked if there was communication, which there was.

Why do y'all feel this is not lying? (I swear that I'm trying to understand and this is not bait or something similar.)

I voted against Trump, and I'm still pretty horrified by the guy, but this is what I think:

His point in answering Franken's question - which was clearly in the context of whether Sessions met with the Russian guy as a Trump surrogate - was that he met with the Russian guy in the capacity as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. That holds up perfectly well to reason.

Unless it is proven that their meeting was indeed about the campaign, then there is no there there. If there is video or audio or meeting notes, then all there is, is conjecture. And it will look political in nature.
.

Tell me something Mac....

WHY are you saying that Frankens question was CLEARLY about talking with the Russians in the campaign capacity?

WHAT about Franken's question to Sessions, gives you that inkling?

What makes that so CLEAR to you....can you point it out?

 

[Mac1958]

Wait wait,
They talked about SOMETHING WORTH LYING ABOUT.

So you don't know what they talked about, and you're just ignoring the fact that Sessions was on the Foreign Relations Committee.

This is the same silliness the Republicans tried to pull on Obama: Take a kernel of truth and just make the rest up for political advantage.

This is why partisans have zero credibility.
.

I don't know what they talked about but here is what I do know:

1. Sessions intentionally misled the congress, there is not a single other explanation of what happened that makes any fucking sense. He didn't misunderstand the question, he knew that congress certainly was interested to hear of ANY meetings, in whatever capacity between him and the Russian and he clearly mislead everyone that heard his testimony to think that he never met with Russian operatives during campaign

2. At the time Sessions and Kislyak meetings Russians had ONE PRIME AGENDA - the campaign for the next president of the United States, this bullshit about how Kislyak contacted no one else on the Armed services Committee except for the person at the core of Trump's campaign and did so to chit-chat about number of planes or something is reason defying.

3. Sessions was not the only one lying, there also Flynn who ALSO was lying in very similar matter about the meetings with Russians. It is VERY tough to not start seeing that there is a highly conspicuous REASON for the lies.

Sessions used precisely the same word - "surrogate" - as Franken did. There was no obfuscation, and Franken was satisfied with the answer. At least until this "controversy" came up. Sessions' answer was clear and in context. It was a little lawyer-speaky, but that's par for the course in DC.

Yes, on the spectrum, this leans toward being fishy. And I'd certainly like to know why these Russia connections keep popping up. But that doesn't make everything these people say is a lie. I would want to be considered innocent until proven guilty, so would you, and there's not enough proof yet - outside of the lowered standards of partisan politics.

Let's not forget the constant screaming of the Republicans over every last fucking possible thing during the Obama administration. It just became noise after a while, a joke. I know how much the two ends of the spectrum love to emulate each other, but it really isn't helpful.
.

Franken was satisfied and so was the world, including me, is because SESSIONS LIED and said he did not have any contact, ZERO CONTACT, with any Russian connected to the Russian government/Putin.

IF Sessions had not LIED and said he had met with the Russians TWICE, there would have been more questions by the Senate on it, and more things he would have neded to answer and depending on those answers, MAY NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN CONSENT of the Senate to become ATTNY General of the USA.

IF their discussion was completely appropriate, there would be no reason to not disclose them.

IF it wasn't, would there would be EVERY reason to avoid getting questioned about those conversations about it under OATH.

Sessions was avoiding.

He answered a direct question directly.

He was under no obligation to bring up meetings that involved topics outside the parameter of the context of the question.

If a lawyer defended a Democrat under those same standards, you would agree, and you would be right.
.

 

[wjmacguffin]

OK, maybe some conservatives here can help me understand something.

Here's the quote from Sessions' conversation with Franken:

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."

From what I can tell, 1) Sessions talked to the Russian ambassador and 2) Sessions was affiliated with the Trump campaign at that time. Even if Sessions only discussed senatorial stuff, it still sounds like lying under oath. Franken didn't ask if Sessions coordinated Trump's campaign with Russia -- he only asked if there was communication, which there was.

Why do y'all feel this is not lying? (I swear that I'm trying to understand and this is not bait or something similar.)

I voted against Trump, and I'm still pretty horrified by the guy, but this is what I think:

His point in answering Franken's question - which was clearly in the context of whether Sessions met with the Russian guy as a Trump surrogate - was that he met with the Russian guy in the capacity as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. That holds up perfectly well to reason.

Unless it is proven that their meeting was indeed about the campaign, then there is no there there. If there is video or audio or meeting notes, then all there is, is conjecture. And it will look political in nature.
.

Hey, big thanks for taking a chance and not just yelling at me because I'm not conservative. Seriously, I appreciate that.

OK, so even though Franken's question did not ask if Sessions met the guy as a Trump campaign official, you feel the unsaid context put the question in that frame? That "any reasonable person" would understand Franken's question was about Session working as a Trump campaign surrogate?

Good point about the lack of evidence. Given that, would you be open to a probe or investigation of Sessions instead of demanding his resignation like many liberals are screaming for?

 

[ptbw forever]

Would anyone ELSE like to address the following statement, in bold?

Sarah Isgur Flores, a Justice Department spokesperson, said Sessions met with Kislyak in his capacity as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and not on behalf of the Trump campaign. She says Sessions had 25 such meetings with envoys from foreign powers during that period, including the Sir Peter John Westmacott, the British ambassador, and Kenichirō Sasae, the Indian ambassador.

“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,” Flores said.

.

And, even his meeting as a Senator from the Armed Service Committee as he stated....

Out of ALL THE MEMBERS of the Armed Forces Committee, why did the Russian Ambassador CHOOSE Sessions to met with and NOT any of the other Armed service committee senators?

Could it be that the Russian Ambassador chose Sessions BECAUSE Sessions was PART pf the Trump team? YOU BETCHA!

And at this time of the meeting, all over the news was the Russians hacking the DNC....yet Sessions chose to met with the Russian SPY anyway...yes, the Ambassador was a KNOWN spy to us.

Okay, so do we know that Sessions is the only member of the committee the guy met with?

And if so, has that question been addressed?
.

And pay attention, this doesn't say in September of 2016, this says in ALL of 2016.

"Attorney General Jeff Sessions is in hot water over revelations that he met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak twice last year, despite seeming to have said twice that no such meetings took place. Sessions’s defense hinges on the idea that the meetings had nothing to do with the 2016 campaign or with his work as a Trump adviser, but related instead to his status as a US senator and a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

One problem here: Of the 26 members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, 25 of them told the Washington Post they had zero meetings with Kislyak in 2016."


Follow
Adam Entous

✔@adamentous
We reached all 26 members of the 2016 Armed Services Committee to see who met with Russian envoy Kislyak in 2016. Sessions was the only one.

2:55 PM - 2 Mar 2017

The other 25 senators on Sessions's committee say they had no meetings with Russian ambassador in 2016

That is no longer true....

Analysis | Sen. McCaskill’s misfired tweet on contacts with Russian ambassador

You need to read that again, and then read her rebuttal. She's never met privately with the Russian Ambassador as a member of the Armed Service Committee like Sessions did.

You need to read it again.

McCaskill said that she had NEVER met with the ambassador for any reason in 2016, which is blatantly false.

 

[Mac1958]

OK, maybe some conservatives here can help me understand something.

Here's the quote from Sessions' conversation with Franken:

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."

From what I can tell, 1) Sessions talked to the Russian ambassador and 2) Sessions was affiliated with the Trump campaign at that time. Even if Sessions only discussed senatorial stuff, it still sounds like lying under oath. Franken didn't ask if Sessions coordinated Trump's campaign with Russia -- he only asked if there was communication, which there was.

Why do y'all feel this is not lying? (I swear that I'm trying to understand and this is not bait or something similar.)

I voted against Trump, and I'm still pretty horrified by the guy, but this is what I think:

His point in answering Franken's question - which was clearly in the context of whether Sessions met with the Russian guy as a Trump surrogate - was that he met with the Russian guy in the capacity as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. That holds up perfectly well to reason.

Unless it is proven that their meeting was indeed about the campaign, then there is no there there. If there is video or audio or meeting notes, then all there is, is conjecture. And it will look political in nature.
.

Tell me something Mac....

WHY are you saying that Frankens question was CLEARLY about talking with the Russians in the campaign capacity?

WHAT about Franken's question to Sessions, gives you that inkling?

What makes that so CLEAR to you....can you point it out?

I listened to the question and read the transcript. The context is clearly about the campaign and surrogates.

I have to go to the office now. I'll read and respond to your response later:

Franken: "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 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."
.

 

[Lewdog]

And, even his meeting as a Senator from the Armed Service Committee as he stated....

Out of ALL THE MEMBERS of the Armed Forces Committee, why did the Russian Ambassador CHOOSE Sessions to met with and NOT any of the other Armed service committee senators?

Could it be that the Russian Ambassador chose Sessions BECAUSE Sessions was PART pf the Trump team? YOU BETCHA!

And at this time of the meeting, all over the news was the Russians hacking the DNC....yet Sessions chose to met with the Russian SPY anyway...yes, the Ambassador was a KNOWN spy to us.

Okay, so do we know that Sessions is the only member of the committee the guy met with?

And if so, has that question been addressed?
.

And pay attention, this doesn't say in September of 2016, this says in ALL of 2016.

"Attorney General Jeff Sessions is in hot water over revelations that he met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak twice last year, despite seeming to have said twice that no such meetings took place. Sessions’s defense hinges on the idea that the meetings had nothing to do with the 2016 campaign or with his work as a Trump adviser, but related instead to his status as a US senator and a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

One problem here: Of the 26 members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, 25 of them told the Washington Post they had zero meetings with Kislyak in 2016."


Follow
Adam Entous

✔@adamentous
We reached all 26 members of the 2016 Armed Services Committee to see who met with Russian envoy Kislyak in 2016. Sessions was the only one.

2:55 PM - 2 Mar 2017

The other 25 senators on Sessions's committee say they had no meetings with Russian ambassador in 2016

That is no longer true....

Analysis | Sen. McCaskill’s misfired tweet on contacts with Russian ambassador

You need to read that again, and then read her rebuttal. She's never met privately with the Russian Ambassador as a member of the Armed Service Committee like Sessions did.

You need to read it again.

McCaskill said that she had NEVER met with the ambassador for any reason in 2016, which is blatantly false.

Her tweet that she met the Russian Ambassador was from 2013...