• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Did Sessions lie to congress?

And we need to keep something clear because people are trying to play fast and dirty. There appears to have been a separate question in writing that did focus on subject (but not capacity):

In January, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) asked Sessions for answers to written questions. “Several of the President-elect’s nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. 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?” Leahy wrote.

Sessions responded with one word: “No.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...e613afeb09f_story.html?utm_term=.15a7553371ee

That's different from Al Franken's verbal question at the confirmation hearing, which I quoted in a few posts up.



Trump defenders are trying to use the written response to Leahy's question in place of his verbal response to Franken's. That's dirty pool.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Yet no one else on the Armed Services Committee said they any similar meetings.

It may be quite "normal", but no one else was doing it.
So, in this instance, "normal" may not mean anything like "common" or "routine".

The Foreign Relations Committee apparently does routinely engage in relations with foreigners though.
But that's not the Armed Services Committee.
Click to expand...

Yeah? Is that what happened?

Let's just throw out one of those names of someone on the armed services committee that never talked to the Russian ambassador - https://www.mccaskill.senate.gov/about-claire

Now here's an article from the Clinton media - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/03/02/senator-mccaskills-misfired-tweet-on-contacts-with-the-russian-ambassador/?utm_term=.41d34d23ecdc

Sen. Claire McCaskill jumped on The Washington Post report that Attorney General Jeff Sessions in 2016 had met twice with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, including once in his Senate office, when Sessions was a key adviser to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.
Click to expand...

Please note that even the headline says she "misfired" in her comment. Now get that, Sessions is a liar and perjured himself while McCaskill "misfired".

This whole dustup is nothing more than a combined effort by the Democrats and their media allies to distract from Trump's speech.
 
Lutherf said:
Yeah? Is that what happened?

Let's just throw out one of those names of someone on the armed services committee that never talked to the Russian ambassador - https://www.mccaskill.senate.gov/about-claire

Now here's an article from the Clinton media - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...he-russian-ambassador/?utm_term=.41d34d23ecdc



Please note that even the headline says she "misfired" in her comment. Now get that, Sessions is a liar and perjured himself while McCaskill "misfired".

This whole dustup is nothing more than a combined effort by the Democrats and their media allies to distract from Trump's speech.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the update.

One of the members of the committee had two meeting over the course of a decade.
So, it's not that the members have had zero meetings [despite their previous statements].

The number of times SASC members meet with Russians is greater than zero, but rarer than "normal" or "routine"
 
joG said:
Again it seems a question of how one wants to interpret, what the words were supposed to mean. Obviously he did talk with Russians. Was it as a part of Trump Campaign that he meant he hadn't? Was he only thinking of the campaign as he answered? That was, what he was being asked about at the time. Or did he lie?

I really don't know. It is a little flimsy to fire him over.
Click to expand...

His meetings with the Russian were documented, so I tend to think he was referring to meeting as a surrogate, which he didn't.
 
Mr Person said:

Last month, during Mr. Sessions’s confirmation hearing for attorney general, Senator Al Franken, Democrat from Minnesota, asked Mr. Sessions what he would do if he learned of evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of the 2016 campaign.“I’m not aware of any of those activities,” Mr. Sessions answered, adding, “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign, and I did not have communications with the Russians.” Mr. Sessions also, on his written Senate confirmation questionnaire, denied having had any communications about the 2016 election with the Russians.We now know that Mr. Sessions had at least two conversations with the Russian ambassador to the United States in July and September 2016 while Mr. Sessions was an adviser to the Trump campaign.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/02/opinion/jeff-sessions-needs-to-go.html?_r=0

(Also https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...e613afeb09f_story.html?utm_term=.15a7553371ee)




If your spin had the slightest basis in reality, Sessions would have used the excuse you are trying to make for him. He didn't draw any distinction about the capacity in which he had at least two conversations with the Russians. He's a lawyer, remember. He kind of gets the distinction. He's also well aware that that isn't the kind of thing you just innocently forget about.

Instead he flatly denied any communications. And you know what, words have meetings?



So what's the next move? Attack the sources and throw some more snotty remarks at the left?
Click to expand...



What is left out is the first part of the question: "Franken: Okay. 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?

Mr. Sessions answered, adding, “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign, and I did not have communications with the Russians.”

I believe he was answering in reference to being a surrogate.
 
holbritter said:
What is left out is the first part of the question: "Franken: Okay. 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?

Mr. Sessions answered, adding, “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign, and I did not have communications with the Russians.”

I believe he was answering in reference to being a surrogate.
Click to expand...

:yt :applaud

As usual, the people we are responding to don't take the time to examine ALL the facts, they just focus on the info that serves their agendas... that and attack the people who oppose them rather than their arguments. :coffeepap:
 
holbritter said:
What is left out is the first part of the question: "Franken: Okay. 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?

Mr. Sessions answered, adding, “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign, and I did not have communications with the Russians.”

I believe he was answering in reference to being a surrogate.
Click to expand...

If a lawyer asks a question at trial and the witness goes past the bounds of the question and volunteers a more definite declaration or more information, that is fair game. Sessions ****ing knows that.



"I did not have communications with the Russians" = "I did not have sex with that woman"




If he wants to fight with Clinton about the definition of "is", they should take a course on Wiggenstein or Quine and argue it there.
 
Vetplus40 said:
There are only two basic options here:
1. He intentionally lied.
2. He forgot about the meeting.

Obviously, he cannot head an investigation into the Russian involvement in our elections. What remains to be seen is if he will have to resign.

Rest assured the WH response will be yet another claim of "false attacks" on their administration.
Click to expand...

Selective omission under oath? That's lying.
 
Captain Adverse said:
As usual, the people we are responding to don't take the time to examine ALL the facts, they just focus on the info that serves their agendas... that and attack the people who oppose them rather than their arguments.
Click to expand...

And you, of course, are not attacking people who are taking a view of the facts, nor have you been jumping into just about every thread negative of Trump and doing the same. Of course not.

/snort
 
Mr Person said:
And you, of course, are not attacking people who are taking a view of the facts, nor have you been jumping into just about every thread negative of Trump and doing the same. Of course not.

/snort
Click to expand...

That would be correct, unless merely responding in opposition somehow constitutes an attack on someone. Now that seems to be the way those I consider to be members of the Alt-left seem to think.

As long as you agree or remain silent...cool. Object or disagree? Then you are somehow attacking them personally. :roll:
 
holbritter said:
What is left out is the first part of the question: "Franken: Okay. 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?

Mr. Sessions answered, adding, “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign, and I did not have communications with the Russians.”

I believe he was answering in reference to being a surrogate.
Click to expand...

This is why I think the prejury accusation isn't an open and shut case. In my mind, I'm thinking that this was largely just a case of bad wording on Sessions' part, but I don't know that for sure.

We'll have to see what comes up.
 
TheGoverness said:
This is why I think the prejury accusation isn't an open and shut case. In my mind, I'm thinking that this was largely just a case of bad wording on Sessions' part, but I don't know that for sure.

We'll have to see what comes up.
Click to expand...

He was asked what as AG he would do if Trump staff were found to have been in contact with the Russians or their surrogates. He replied that he had had no contact. That was not only untrue, it wasn't even what he was asked! He denied something he hadn't been accused of.
 
Manc Skipper said:
He was asked what as AG he would do if Trump staff were found to have been in contact with the Russians or their surrogates. He replied that he had had no contact. That was not only untrue, it wasn't en what he was asked!
Click to expand...

I haven't read about that one yet. Who asked that question?
 
Al Franken at the confirmation hearing, presumably, that's when he first denied meeting Russians.

There heve been reports that meetings happened....

" ..."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." ..."

In Context: What Jeff Sessions told Al Franken about meeting Russian officials | PolitiFact
 
Last edited:
TheGoverness said:
This is why I think the prejury accusation isn't an open and shut case. In my mind, I'm thinking that this was largely just a case of bad wording on Sessions' part, but I don't know that for sure.

We'll have to see what comes up.
Click to expand...

IMHO, Highly unlikely given Sessions extensive legal background.
 
This is why they tell you to answer yes or no if you are able. If he would have just said no to the question he might have gotten away with it. BY giving an answer to a question that wasn't answered he either lied or misinformed, either one being a violation. I think he was so ready to answer the question that wasn't asked, that he mistook the real question asked for the one he answered if you can understand my thinking.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Yet no one else on the Armed Services Committee said they any similar meetings.

It may be quite "normal", but no one else was doing it.
So, in this instance, "normal" may not mean anything like "common" or "routine".

The Foreign Relations Committee apparently does routinely engage in relations with foreigners though.
But that's not the Armed Services Committee.
Click to expand...

I had read that and found it rather provincial, if true.
 
holbritter said:
His meetings with the Russian were documented, so I tend to think he was referring to meeting as a surrogate, which he didn't.
Click to expand...

That certainly makes more sense than any other explanation.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Al Franken at the confirmation hearing, presumably, that's when he first denied meeting Russians.

There heve been reports that meetings happened....

" ..."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." ..."

In Context: What Jeff Sessions told Al Franken about meeting Russian officials | PolitiFact
Click to expand...

Why are you leaving out such an important part of the question? The part which would explain why he answered as he did?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom