• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Maybe he should listen to the standard lawyer's advice. Answer only the question asked and as briefly as possible and then shut up. I wonder if he has any lawyers in the family.

Oh come on, he was only being interviewed for Attorney General. How could you expect him to know anything about lawyer stuff?
 
Or he could have not said anything about his interactions with Russia, because he was never asked about them.

The surrogate part struck me as well.

ETA: Sessions' answer strikes me as a kind of "tell" used to see if someone is being deceptive. Elaborating unnecessarily on a question.
 
Last edited:
Oh come on, he was only being interviewed for Attorney General. How could you expect him to know anything about lawyer stuff?

He's been a politician for too long where the standard is to answer anything except the question asked and talk for as long as possible.
 
Al Franken's question was rambling and if Sessions had stuck to answering it he would have been fine (granted I haven't seen the whole context). Sessions just had to give a less direct answer (or a startlingly more direct answer).

How does the head of an agency "recuse" himself, anyway? It's not like being before a judge, where it can be handed off to another judge. The agency head is an administrator of a gigantic organization. Maybe Comey would be swayed by Sessions saying "let it drop," but would he really do it? And a special prosecutor would be out of his chain of command, presumably. Not convinced those guys are independent either, though.

Sessions could say he would rigorously address causes for concern, or he could say, "You know, I actually met the Russian ambassador twice, but never did more than shake hands and exchange pleasantries."

It would be so cool if Lindsay Graham had set him up. Graham may deeply disappoint me some day but so far I like him.
You don't appear to understand how recusal in this case would work. Sessions would be barred from hearing anything about the ongoing investigation. He'd be blocked from hearing whatever evidence was being discussed.

As for Franken rambling, that's BS.
 
I'm having a hard time with this whole, "meeting with the Russians" thing. Ambassadors meet with principals in other governments. It's kind of their job.
 
The surrogate part struck me as well.

ETA: Sessions' answer strikes me as a kind of "tell" used to see if someone is being deceptive. Elaborating unnecessarily on a question.

As an instructor, students answering the question not asked is usually a sign that they don't know the answer to the question that WAS asked, and so they bluster hoping to get partial credit.
 
You don't appear to understand how recusal in this case would work. Sessions would be barred from hearing anything about the ongoing investigation. He'd be blocked from hearing whatever evidence was being discussed.

As for Franken rambling, that's BS.

Well, he rambled a bit in the set-up, but it is obvious that he did it because he wanted to make it clear that he wasn't accusing anyone of anything. But in terms of the question, it was straight-forward.
 
To me it is obvious that he committed perjury by any interpretation of his testimony. To parse this as any short of overt lying under oath requires an incredible willingness to allow him to take the clear word-by-word meaning of his statements and to change it retrospectively by adding provisos and context not present in the original statements.

One might avoid perjury charges by being slyly specific:
"Oh no Senator, I never stole money from any sick old person!"
If it later turns out he only stole from healthy young ones he didn't commit perjury.

But in Sessions' case it was more like:
"Oh,, no Senator, I never stole money from anyone!""

"But I have proof that you did!"

"Oh, I meant not from any sick old person. Only heathy young ones. Weren't we talking about sick old people awhile ago? Yeah, yeah, that's what I thought we were referring to. Sure. I just didn't bother to put that into my actual statement when I said "any." Any in my dictionary actually means only.. only the sick and old."

As I see it anyone means anyone. And this is our Attorney General, right???

It really makes Bill Clinton's interpretation of the word "sex" seem convincing by comparison.

Of course if Session ever has to answer for it will be determined by the highest law of the nation (and of almost any nation): the powerful and wealthy are not like the rest of us and they protect their own.
 
I'm having a hard time with this whole, "meeting with the Russians" thing. Ambassadors meet with principals in other governments. It's kind of their job.

No one is faulting the Russian ambassador. Nor is the problem per se with Sessions having done so (although it is important to note that members of the Armed Services Committee, such as he was, nearly never meet with foreign ambassadors, making the meetings under discussion more than a little suspicious). The real problem is that Sessions lied about it, and under oath.
 
I'm having a hard time with this whole, "meeting with the Russians" thing. Ambassadors meet with principals in other governments. It's kind of their job.

Ambassadors meet with other ambassadors. They don't meet directly with members of the other government's government (legislatures, judiciary, appointed ministers/Secretaries, etc).
 
The entire Trump regime should be arrested, tried, and sentenced for treason.

We really haven't any good evidence of treason, for goodness' sake!

Let's wait and see what comes up. The intelligence services seem to be doing their jobs.
 
How does the head of an agency "recuse" himself, anyway? It's not like being before a judge, where it can be handed off to another judge. The agency head is an administrator of a gigantic organization.



This wouldn't be a problem in properly run organization. He'd assign one of his deputies to do the job, with instructions not to communicate anything about the case until it is ultimately settled. He'd also make sure that everyone working for that deputy understood the same thing, that the Deputy was the ultimate person in charge for this case.

Then, the really hard part, he'd actually have to keep his hands off it and let the Deputy and the staff do their jobs, without interference.

But that's how a properly run organization would do it, and as we all know, this administration is instead a "well-oiled machine", so they're pretty much screwed.
 
I'm having a hard time with this whole, "meeting with the Russians" thing. Ambassadors meet with principals in other governments. It's kind of their job.

In this case, however, Sessions lied (while under oath, no less) about not meeting the Russian ambassador during a period of time when Sessions was busily helping Trump win the upcoming election at a time when it was clear that the Russians were also helping Trump to win the upcoming election.

The thing smells like a serious case of collusion which could be serious trouble for both Sessions and possibly Trump himself.
 
This wouldn't be a problem in properly run organization. He'd assign one of his deputies to do the job, with instructions not to communicate anything about the case until it is ultimately settled. He'd also make sure that everyone working for that deputy understood the same thing, that the Deputy was the ultimate person in charge for this case.

Then, the really hard part, he'd actually have to keep his hands off it and let the Deputy and the staff do their jobs, without interference.

But that's how a properly run organization would do it, and as we all know, this administration is instead a "well-oiled machine", so they're pretty much screwed.

This is a classic "Special Prosecutor" situation.
 
This wouldn't be a problem in properly run organization. He'd assign one of his deputies to do the job, with instructions not to communicate anything about the case until it is ultimately settled. He'd also make sure that everyone working for that deputy understood the same thing, that the Deputy was the ultimate person in charge for this case.

Then, the really hard part, he'd actually have to keep his hands off it and let the Deputy and the staff do their jobs, without interference.

But that's how a properly run organization would do it, and as we all know, this administration is instead a "well-oiled machine", so they're pretty much screwed.

"Fine tuned". I only correct you because what Trump actually said is grating, whereas what you said was grammatically correct. "Well" is an adverb. "Fine" is not an adverb.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom