Major GOPer Issa calls for Special Prosecutor!!!!!

[BobTheCoward]

I couldn't say... but there are surely many who steer their business to anywhere but Russia. Or at least keep it more on the up and up.


With Trump though, it gets to multiple extremely favorable (read: profitable) deals made by Russia with many within the Trump sphere... I'm not even talking about the blackmail/leverage material (whatever may exist), just the shared kleptocracy over a decade.

Trump himself got a $40 Million payoff, just when he needed a cash influx, on a property deal to one of Putin's guys. Buy for $20M, sell a few months later for $60M... buyer may have never set foot in the house.

I couldn't keep the cast of characters straight, it just went on and on.
I'm not sure who, high up in this admin, doesn't owe Putin "bigly".
Much of it, while shady or at least dodgy, would still be legal. And simply theft business by businessmen (for the most part).
It becomes disconcerting though when so many turn up in power positions within one administration.
Putin never, ever, forgets who owes him.

I had hoped for more, and a follow up, but the speech last night and dissection tonight meant her show has been pre-empted twice.
Maybe tomorrow.

ThY is a lot of words to say no, you can't prove the relationship is exceptional.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Regardless of what role he played he denied meeting with the Russians. Now they are trying to reframe it as having not met in relation to the campaign. He's moved the goalposts.

He made an off hand addition to a question about Trump associates. Since he was not an associate, hi isn't an associate that met with Russians.

 

[Darat]

ThY is a lot of words to say no, you can't prove the relationship is exceptional.

Why do the relationships have to be exceptional to be a problem?

 

[Civet]

Hurm. Looking at the exact wording of his exchange with Franken and the exact wording of Leahy's question in the written exchange Sessions does have some wiggle room. I still think he was deliberately misleading and, in any event, should recuse himself from involvement in the Russia investigation but this isn't the sort of absolute, unambiguous slam dunk I thought it was when the story first broke.

 

[PhantomWolf]

What does that even mean though - to sell America out to a foreign power?

Well you remember when Republicans where clamoring over themselves to demand that the US intervene in the Ukraine?

But then did a 180 when Trump helped write up the new manifesto....

That's what it looks like. Small things like weakening relations with Europe, or turning a blind eye to increased Russian influence in the Middle East. It doesn't take that much at all.

 

[The Don]

Hurm. Looking at the exact wording of his exchange with Franken and the exact wording of Leahy's question in the written exchange Sessions does have some wiggle room. I still think he was deliberately misleading and, in any event, should recuse himself from involvement in the Russia investigation but this isn't the sort of absolute, unambiguous slam dunk I thought it was when the story first broke.

This is my feeling too. Weasel words which though they are strictly true, are also deliberately misleading.

 

[The Don]

My belief is that the calls were for a very narrow investigation which would serve both the President and the GOP because its narrow focus couldn't help but exonerate the administration.

Now that it seems that there might be a real scandal, I think that GOP calls for a Special Prosecutor will fall silent because "the situation is far too complicated to rush to judgement" - or some such nonsense

 

[zorro99]

Sessions perjured himself. He lacks the integrity to be the United States Attorney General. He should resign

 

[angrysoba]

He made an off hand addition to a question about Trump associates. Since he was not an associate, hi isn't an associate that met with Russians.

Whether he is or is not an associate, he said...

“I’m not aware of any of those activities,” he responded. He added: “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.”

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/1/14786100/jeff-sessions-russia-trump

 

[sunmaster14]

Whether he is or is not an associate, he said...



http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/1/14786100/jeff-sessions-russia-trump

I read it thusly:

“I’m not aware of any of those activities,” he responded. He added: “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].”

He did have a conversation with the Russian ambassador in his Senate office in his capacity as a senior member of the Senate Armed Forces Committee.

Not saying that the above sentence is true. But that would be his defense, and it's a pretty good one.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Why do the relationships have to be exceptional to be a problem?

People are using the quantity to suggest a coordination in the election. But the quantity might be a very normal amount.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I read it thusly:

“I’m not aware of any of those activities,” he responded. He added: “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].”

He did have a conversation with the Russian ambassador in his Senate office in his capacity as a senior member of the Senate Armed Forces Committee.

Not saying that the above sentence is true. But that would be his defense, and it's a pretty good one.

It's every bit as good as Bill Clinton's defense of "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."

As some of us may recall, perjury was one of the grounds for Bill Clinton's impeachment, but he was acquitted by the US Senate.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

It's every bit as good as Bill Clinton's defense of "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."

As some of us may recall, perjury was one of the grounds for Bill Clinton's impeachment, but he was acquitted by the US Senate.

Clinton's defense is arguably better, since he was strictly speaking right as long as one considers that "sexual relations" is legal jargon for specific acts. In the case of Sessions you'd have to add words that were not there.

 

[sunmaster14]

It's every bit as good as Bill Clinton's defense of "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."

First of all, Clinton said that in a press conference to the American people. It was not under oath, and therefore not illegal, although, to be honest, in some ways it was worse than perjury.

Also, Clinton's word games were far more egregious and transparently dishonest than Sessions'. Sessions' word games are not only plausible, they make perfect sense.

As some of us may recall, perjury was one of the grounds for Bill Clinton's impeachment, but he was acquitted by the US Senate.

Bill Clinton, under oath, explicitly denied having a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky, either at the precise time of his testimony, or before. In addition, he encouraged Monica Lewinsky to file a false affidavit attesting to the same lack of a sexual relationship. In addition to that, after the initial disclosure of the Lewinsky tape, he went around telling White House staff that the allegations were false, even though such people would likely be interviewed by the independent counsel.

Bill Clinton's behavior clearly amounted to obstruction of justice and perjury.

As for Jeff Sessions' "omission," let's compare it with Eric Holder's DOJ's explicit denial to Congress that Fast and Furious did what it actually did do (a denial it was forced to retract 11 months later). Or Eric Holder's explicit denial to Congress that he knew anything about Fast and Furious until it the few weeks before his testimony, even though there was abundant documentation of his being briefed multiple times on the program many months prior. Or Eric Holder's explicit (and false) denial to Congress that he knew of any potential prosecution of journalists by the DOJ.

Did Nancy Pelosi or Elijah Cummings call for Eric Holder's resignation? Of course not.

 

[eeyore1954]

It's every bit as good as Bill Clinton's defense of "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."

As some of us may recall, perjury was one of the grounds for Bill Clinton's impeachment, but he was acquitted by the US Senate.

I don't believe that was the statement that was considered perjury.

 

[Bogative]

Sessions perjured himself. He lacks the integrity to be the United States Attorney General. He should resign

I agree. A sitting US Senator who is the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee had a meeting with the ambassador of a foreign country, all of which is part of the public record, is one step down the short path to tyranny.

The next step will be Sessions holding secret meetings on business jets with a former president whose wife was the former Secretary of State and under investigation by the DOJ to "talk about their grandchildren."

What next? Will one of the regimes White House advisors put her feet on the couch with her shoes on? Oh, the horror!

This is so concerning I may have to subscribe to Keith Olbermann's "The Resistance" YouTube channel to do my part stop the tyrant.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I agree.

glad to hear it.

A sitting US Senator who is the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee had a meeting with the ambassador of a foreign country, all of which is part of the public record

Which public record is that ? Evidence please.

Also, since you claim it's part of the "public record", why did he lie about it while under oath ?

 

[Bogative]

glad to hear it.



Which public record is that ? Evidence please.

Also, since you claim it's part of the "public record", why did he lie about it while under oath ?

He met with the Russian ambassador at a Heritage Foundation event and in his office. Maybe I should've said he met with the ambassador in places that are open to the public instead of part of the public record, who knows for sure if the meetings were covered by the press before they were able to garner enough attention to sell papers and add revenue.

It's only a lie if Sessions was considered a surrogate of the campaign when he met with the ambassador. He clearly does not believe he was as evidenced by his statement.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...mepage/story&utm_term=.e0bf87df40f0&tid=a_inl

Two months before the September meeting, Sessions attended a Heritage Foundation event in July on the sidelines of the Republican National Convention that was attended by about 50 ambassadors. When the event was over, a small group of ambassadors approached Sessions as he was leaving the podium, and Kislyak was among them, the Justice Department official said.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

He met with the Russian ambassador at a Heritage Foundation event and in his office.

Well, no.

In July, Sessions attended a Heritage Foundation event at the Republican National Convention, and spoke with him on the phone from his office.

Maybe I should've said he met with the ambassador in places that are open to the public instead of part of the public record, who knows for sure if the meetings were covered by the press before they were able to garner enough attention to sell papers and add revenue.

The heritage event was not a private campaign event ? Senator Sessions phone calls are open to the public ? Please.

At his Jan. 10 Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing, Sessions was asked by Sen. Al Franken, a Minnesota Democrat, what he would do if he learned of any 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,” he responded. He added: “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.”

I don't see "as a surrogate". I think it was clearly a blanket statement, but if you want to argue that it was "on the context as a trump surrogate" I find that a ridiculously weak argument. Especially since Sessions was at the RNC where he spoke with Russian ambassado precisely because candidate Donald Trump had named him chairman of the campaign's National Security Advisory Committee. Of course he was there as a Trump surrogate and not as a senator on the SASC.

It's only a lie if Sessions was considered a surrogate of the campaign when he met with the ambassador.

He clearly does not believe he was as evidenced by his statement.

Nice circular reasoning.

 

[Bogative]

Well, no.

In July, Sessions attended a Heritage Foundation event at the Republican National Convention, and spoke with him on the phone from his office.



The heritage event was not a private campaign event ? Senator Sessions phone calls are open to the public ? Please.

I guess your definition of private is different from mine. A United States senator talking to a foreign ambassador in a room full of people attending a panel discussion in which Sessions gave a speech is not my definition of private. And, no, his phone call conversation was not public, just the fact that it happened.

You'll have to forgive me for my error about the meeting in Sessions office, but when a respected newspaper such as the Washington Post says, "one of the meetings was a private conversation between Sessions and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak that took place in September in the senator's office" then I naturally assumed that's what happened. I'll know better the next time.

As I said in my prior post, the Heritage event and meeting was known to the public as well the phone call.
The September meeting with Kislyak was memorialized on the former senator's calendar.

So back to my original point: these meetings with the ambassador were no secret and were known to the public. It's just the left's latest Witchhunt du jour. Why would Sessions lie about events that he knew were known to the public?

I don't see "as a surrogate". I think it was clearly a blanket statement, but if you want to argue that it was "on the context as a trump surrogate" I find that a ridiculously weak argument. Especially since Sessions was at the RNC where he spoke with Russian ambassado precisely because candidate Donald Trump had named him chairman of the campaign's National Security Advisory Committee. Of course he was there as a Trump surrogate and not as a senator on the SASC.

When you are looking for a witch to burn, one needs to dull his needle.


ETA: just to clarify, I'm in favor of Sessions recusing himself from the investigation, not the hysterics calling for him to resign as Attorney General.