• 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!

Exclusive: Sources contradict Sessions' testimony he opposed Russia outreach

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
93,583
Reaction score
81,661
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Exclusive: Sources contradict Sessions' testimony he opposed Russia outreach

8a67310b3a2895051be8e9c0b4b2c470.jpg


By Karen Freifeld, Sarah N. Lynch, Mark Hosenball
Reuters
March 18, 2018

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ testimony that he opposed a proposal for President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign team to meet with Russians has been contradicted by three people who told Reuters they have spoken about the matter to investigators with Special Counsel Robert Mueller or congressional committees. Sessions testified before Congress in November 2017 that he “pushed back” against the proposal made by former campaign adviser George Papadopoulos at a March 31, 2016 campaign meeting. Then a senator from Alabama, Sessions chaired the meeting as head of the Trump campaign’s foreign policy team. “Yes, I pushed back,” Sessions told the House Judiciary Committee on Nov. 14, when asked whether he shut down Papadopoulos’ proposed outreach to Russia. Sessions has since also been interviewed by Mueller.

Three people who attended the March campaign meeting told Reuters they gave their version of events to FBI agents or congressional investigators probing Russian interference in the 2016 election. Although the accounts they provided to Reuters differed in certain respects, all threes, who declined to be identified, said Sessions had expressed no objections to Papadopoulos’ idea. Sessions, through Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores, declined to comment beyond his prior testimony. Reuters was unable to determine whether Mueller is probing discrepancies in accounts of the March 2016 meeting. The three accounts, which have not been reported, raise new questions about Sessions’ testimony regarding contacts with Russia during the campaign. Sessions previously failed to disclose to Congress meetings he had with former Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, and testified in October that he was not aware of any campaign representatives communicating with Russians.

I hope Mueller sees to it that this little weasel gets indicted for perjury.
 
Well, there were about a dozen people at that meeting. What do the other 9 say happened?

It's not to be accepted unless every single person you say is present confirms the account? And there was I was thinking that when 40% of the country suddenly started acting like "anonymous sources" cannot ever be trusted was peak stupidity. Now you're going to impose a new rule that not only must sources be publicly identified, but that everyone who is potentially a source must be interviewed?

Man, people trying to defend Team Trump really are getting creative as they invent new rules for each situation in which they don't want to hear something.
 
It's not to be accepted unless every single person you say is present confirms the account? And there was I was thinking that when 40% of the country suddenly started acting like "anonymous sources" cannot ever be trusted was peak stupidity. Now you're going to impose a new rule that not only must sources be publicly identified, but that everyone who is potentially a source must be interviewed?

Man, people trying to defend Team Trump really are getting creative as they invent new rules for each situation in which they don't want to hear something.

Thats not what I said at all. There were a dozen people at that meeting. Almost certainly they have all been interviewed by Mueller with the exception of Trump. Ok, so 3 dont recall Sessions comment. If the other 9 do, then this isnt a story now is it. We keep getting these leaks that only tell part of the story. And every time we do, Trump hating lefties jump up and say "AHA Proof" In this case, the leak tells us nothing except 3 people in a meeting that took place almost 2 years ago dont remember a particular comment. Put your pitch forks away
 
Well, there were about a dozen people at that meeting. What do the other 9 say happened?

It's not to be accepted unless every single person you say is present confirms the account? And there was I was thinking that when 40% of the country suddenly started acting like "anonymous sources" cannot ever be trusted was peak stupidity. Now you're going to impose a new rule that not only must sources be publicly identified, but that everyone who is potentially a source must be interviewed?

Man, people trying to defend Team Trump really are getting creative as they invent new rules for each situation in which they don't want to hear something.

Thats not what I said at all. There were a dozen people at that meeting. Almost certainly they have all been interviewed by Mueller with the exception of Trump. Ok, so 3 dont recall Sessions comment. If the other 9 do, then this isnt a story now is it. We keep getting these leaks that only tell part of the story. And every time we do, Trump hating lefties jump up and say "AHA Proof" In this case, the leak tells us nothing except 3 people in a meeting that took place almost 2 years ago dont remember a particular comment. Put your pitch forks away

As you can see above, your only response to the OP was "Well, there were about a dozen people at that meeting. What do the other 9 say happened?" So yes, that is exactly what you were saying. It is quite strange that you open your response by denying that you spoke as I described, but then included that second-to-last sentence that repeats the same idea.
 
As you can see above, your only response to the OP was "Well, there were about a dozen people at that meeting. What do the other 9 say happened?" So yes, that is exactly what you were saying. It is quite strange that you open your response by denying that you spoke as I described, but then included that second-to-last sentence that repeats the same idea.

You dont read your own posts then. You said "Its not to be accepted unless every single person you say is present confirms the account?' That is what I disputed because that is not what I said. Let me repeat: If three people dont recall the comment, then that may be newsworthy. But there were 12 people at the meeting. If the other 9 do recall the comment, then Sessions account is substantiated. This leak does not prove Sessions was lying as the OP would like us to believe, but in fact proves nothing at all. This isnt complicated so I am not sure why you are struggling with it.
 
You dont read your own posts then. You said "Its not to be accepted unless every single person you say is present confirms the account?' That is what I disputed because that is not what I said. Let me repeat: If three people dont recall the comment, then that may be newsworthy. But there were 12 people at the meeting. If the other 9 do recall the comment, then Sessions account is substantiated. This leak does not prove Sessions was lying as the OP would like us to believe, but in fact proves nothing at all. This isnt complicated so I am not sure why you are struggling with it.

LOL!

Another made-up rule. Since when does Random Internet Poster Fletch get to announce that the failure of X number of persons to remember (OR ADMIT THEY REMEMBER) what Y number of persons say they recall, that means that the X number of persons are wrong? Why the numbers 3 and 9 specifically?

Enough of the silly games.



I'll tell you why 3 and 9: because 3 people mentioned the comment and you don't want the comment to be true. Therefore, we need a rule that says 3:9 = false. And because we invent that rule, we can then dismiss the report until we know what the other 9 say. All a BS house of cards....
 
You dont read your own posts then. You said "Its not to be accepted unless every single person you say is present confirms the account?' That is what I disputed because that is not what I said. Let me repeat: If three people dont recall the comment, then that may be newsworthy. But there were 12 people at the meeting. If the other 9 do recall the comment, then Sessions account is substantiated. This leak does not prove Sessions was lying as the OP would like us to believe, but in fact proves nothing at all. This isnt complicated so I am not sure why you are struggling with it.

one major difference seperates the group of three people at the meeting with sessions from the remaining 9 people.

Three people who attended the March campaign meeting told Reuters they gave their version of events to FBI agents or congressional investigators probing Russian interference in the 2016 election. Although the accounts they provided to Reuters differed in certain respects, all threes, who declined to be identified, said Sessions had expressed no objections to Papadopoulos’ idea. Sessions, through Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores, declined to comment beyond his prior testimony. Reuters was unable to determine whether Mueller is probing discrepancies in accounts of the March 2016 meeting. The three accounts, which have not been reported, raise new questions about Sessions’ testimony regarding contacts with Russia during the campaign. Sessions previously failed to disclose to Congress meetings he had with former Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, and testified in October that he was not aware of any campaign representatives communicating with Russians.

these three people told the rueters reporter that they provided their version of events to FBI agents and congressional investigators that were looking into russian interference in the 2016 election. the other 9 people? who have they spoken to about what they overheard at that meeting?

and since all three of the people interviewed by reuters chose to remain anonymous, we can't be sure which of the 12 people who were in the room with sessions actaully spoke to the FBI.
 
LOL!

Another made-up rule. Since when does Random Internet Poster Fletch get to announce that the failure of X number of persons to remember (OR ADMIT THEY REMEMBER) what Y number of persons say they recall, that means that the X number of persons are wrong? Why the numbers 3 and 9 specifically?

Enough of the silly games.



I'll tell you why 3 and 9: because 3 people mentioned the comment and you don't want the comment to be true. Therefore, we need a rule that says 3:9 = false. And because we invent that rule, we can then dismiss the report until we know what the other 9 say. All a BS house of cards....

You are reading into my posts things that arent there. Perhaps you might prefer debating yourself. At least that way you have a chance of coming out on top. The point is simple. Yet for some reason you wont let it sink in. I am accepting the story as true--3 people at the meeting have no memory of Sessions saying anything in response to Papadouchbag. Fine. My original comment was ok, what do the other 9 people remember? That is a completely logical question, but something you wont even contemplate because your only interest is in demonizing Trump and those around him. Thats fine. You are free to be a blind partisan if thats what you wish to be. The fact remains, despite your unwillingness to see it, is that there were other people at that meeting and we havent heard their recollections of the events. But I get it, you dont car. You wont let something as inconvenient as facts get in the way of your hatred for Trump.
 
one major difference seperates the group of three people at the meeting with sessions from the remaining 9 people.



these three people told the rueters reporter that they provided their version of events to FBI agents and congressional investigators that were looking into russian interference in the 2016 election. the other 9 people? who have they spoken to about what they overheard at that meeting?

and since all three of the people interviewed by reuters chose to remain anonymous, we can't be sure which of the 12 people who were in the room with sessions actaully spoke to the FBI.

I dont think we disagree. 3 people have testified that they didnt hear Sessions say what he claimed to have said. But that doesnt mean he didnt say it. There are still 9 others who were in the room that we havent heard from. And of the 3, what did they testify to that Sessions actually said? Did he say nothing? Did he say 'great,lets get the help of the Russians?' Or do they not recall what was said by whom? Those are fairly importants questions that need to be answered before we can conclude that Sessions lied.
 
Back
Top Bottom