Attorney General Sessions is in Serious Trouble

[marplots]

Again irrelevant. You don't seem to want to understand the issue since you first posted in this thread after it had already been explained and then again after it was specifically explained to you by multiple people.

Now that I've explained why your position is wrong, do you understand the issue properly?

This adherence to toxic pedantry ("he lied, he LIED!!!") is silly and immature. But I'll spell it out just in case. There is a lie that is a misstatement of facts. There is a lie that attempts to mislead. Consider the difference between the two and recognize we are not Vulcans, but human beings.

Do you really want to cripple our national government by swinging the pedant sword? Really?

ETA: Go all in and commit. Does the difference between Sessions being an effective AG and not boil down to how he answered that question? If he had answered differently, all would be happiness and joy? Hardly. This is just party politics and "What can we throw at them next?"

 

[Giordano]

I'm not buying this charge of lying under oath.

First of all, Sessions knows his meeting(s) are a matter of public record - a lie doesn't work to conceal that. Second, he doesn't stop being a Senator because he's "helping Trump with his campaign." Third, meeting the Russian ambassador isn't at all suspicious - dirty dealings are hardly going to take place in an open meeting, when covert is so readily available.

This is a constructed scandal with no "there" there. The charge of lying under oath is being used as the camel's nose to wedge party politics into the tent.

I think Trump pushes back on this one and Sessions doesn't get fired or quit.

ETA: We are skeptics. Quit with the mud throwing and give us some proof.

Isn't this the "It must have been so obvious to him that he would be caught that he could not possibly have intended to commit the crime" defense?

As mentioned- meeting with a Russian (or any) ambassador is a very unusual, almost unheard of act given Sessions specific responsibilities in the Senate; as such in my view this makes the meeting odd and possibly suspicious. Sessions lying about it makes it even more suspicious as I see it (especially given the other interactions going on between Trump's campaign and the Russians). But okay- this is just a suspicion, not evidence of anything wrong in the absence of more investigation. But lying about it is what represents an overt crime, perjury, whether the original meeting proves to be legitimate or not.

Yes we are skeptics- and I am skeptical of the spin-doctored far-fetched, retrospective attempts to explain why Sessions' straightforward denials of having met with Russian representatives were not perjury.

 

[Crossbow]

I'm not buying this charge of lying under oath.

First of all, Sessions knows his meeting(s) are a matter of public record - a lie doesn't work to conceal that. Second, he doesn't stop being a Senator because he's "helping Trump with his campaign." Third, meeting the Russian ambassador isn't at all suspicious - dirty dealings are hardly going to take place in an open meeting, when covert is so readily available.

This is a constructed scandal with no "there" there. The charge of lying under oath is being used as the camel's nose to wedge party politics into the tent.

I think Trump pushes back on this one and Sessions doesn't get fired or quit.

ETA: We are skeptics. Quit with the mud throwing and give us some proof.

You may be right and that strictly speaking Sessions did not actually commit perjury and that Sessions will keep his job.

However, even if this is the case, then it is quite clear that the credibility of Sessions will be significantly deteriorated which will make a tough job much tougher.

Also, considering that it was Trump who was so keen on “law and order” during his campaign, then it is quite likely that the credibility of Trump will be deteriorated as well.

Furthermore, even if Sessions does keep his job, then it makes it quite likely that some sort of special prosecutor/special investigator will be named since no one will trust the objectivity of Sessions in this matter. And please keep in mind, it was the issue of the special prosecutor concerning the Russian Hacking issue, and it was the special prosecutor which caused Nixon to develop an irreparable loss of credibility about 33 years ago.

 

[phiwum]

Right ... and who would hold him accountable? Al Franken? Good luck with that.

I'm not quite sure I understand your question here.

I think there are many times in which an AG recused himself (am I wrong?) and therefore there must be some standards for such recusals. I confess that I'm far from certain how it works, but I think it usually works even without Franken.

Anyone with more knowledge want to fill me in?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

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).

Indeed. Sessions is incompetent for having added additional information not asked for.

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.

I don't but the part of his job. This particular senator just happened to be chairman of the Trump campaign's National Security Advisory Committee.

No one else on the SASC was or is a Trump surrogate, and none of them seem to have had reason to speak with Kislyak.

I'm not buying this charge of lying under oath.

First of all, Sessions knows his meeting(s) are a matter of public record - a lie doesn't work to conceal that. Second, he doesn't stop being a Senator because he's "helping Trump with his campaign." Third, meeting the Russian ambassador isn't at all suspicious - dirty dealings are hardly going to take place in an open meeting, when covert is so readily available.

This is a constructed scandal with no "there" there. The charge of lying under oath is being used as the camel's nose to wedge party politics into the tent.

I think Trump pushes back on this one and Sessions doesn't get fired or quit.

ETA: We are skeptics. Quit with the mud throwing and give us some proof.

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.”
He did have communications with the Russians. I don't see sessions adding the modifier "as a surrogate", and frankly, the question wasn't limited to just surrogates. Even if it was , a strong case could be made that the Ambassador was only talking to sessions becuase he was the Trump campaign's National Security Advisory Committee chairman .. not because he was on the SASC.

From your perspective - why wouldn't Sessions be more clear - of course I talk to many people as a senator, but I've spoken with none of them for President trump or similar ?

 

[Giordano]

Now that I've explained why your position is wrong, do you understand the issue properly?

This adherence to toxic pedantry ("he lied, he LIED!!!") is silly and immature. But I'll spell it out just in case. There is a lie that is a misstatement of facts. There is a lie that attempts to mislead. Consider the difference between the two and recognize we are not Vulcans, but human beings.

Do you really want to cripple our national government by swinging the pedant sword? Really?

The definition of a lie is that the person telling it knows it to be untrue. An inadvertent mis-statement of facts due to the teller's ignorance is not a lie. Given the importance and relevance of his testimony, is it logical to assume that Sessions just happened to "forget" that he met with the Russian ambassador twice?? I don't even think that concept has been a central part of his defense, has it? Given the actual wording and the context, it is virtually impossible to believe that Sessions' didn't know the facts and that he intended to mislead. It hardly seems explainable as the result of some innocent human frailty.

Am I claiming that the current evidence is sufficient to convict Sessions of perjury and send him to prison for 10 years? No, but that is not what we are debating here- we do not have that power nor should it be exerted by anyone in the absence of a formal legal investigation and possible trial. But if a similar situation arose with a used car salesman, almost anyone would say- "The guy lied to me!"

I would rather not cripple our government by populating it with boldface liars.

 

[Minoosh]

Yeah the war on drugs has been going spectacularily well up to now...

Legalizing at least medicinal weed would be a popular bipartisan move (among the populace) IMO. I noted that Sessions said pot now has more THC, which not all of it does. A friend who uses it medicinally (and recreationally) in SF often prefers the stuff stamped as having less THC.

Trump has already said he thinks medicinal is OK, although that is just as much a violation of the controlled substances act. (Though it tends to "weed out" younger people less likely to be chronically ill). Schedule I drugs by definition have no medical use. I wonder if Trump is capable of seeing how many times his Cabinet members come out publicly with statements that contradict his position.

Sessions reminds me of a chipmunk. Maybe that's why he gets away with things.

 

[Spindrift]

I would rather not cripple our government by populating it with boldface liars.

Or people with extremely poor memories.

 

[marplots]

I don't but the part of his job. This particular senator just happened to be chairman of the Trump campaign's National Security Advisory Committee.

No one else on the SASC was or is a Trump surrogate, and none of them seem to have had reason to speak with Kislyak.

Is that true? I'd be very interested to see what the Russian ambassador's schedule for a year might be like. I imagine he would have met with all kinds of people for all kinds of reasons. We want him to. We want to be able to interact with foreign governments, it's one of the jobs we task our national government with - international relations. More communication is better.

Somehow we've come to a point where "speaking with Russians" is tantamount to calling ISIL. It isn't.

 

[Minoosh]

I would rather not cripple our government by populating it with boldface liars.

"Bald-faced" is the idiom though popular usage might change that. [/pedant]

 

[marplots]

The entire Trump regime should be arrested, tried, and sentenced for treason.

At least we got that out in the open. Now all we need is a catchphrase equivalent to "Benghazi!"

I didn't like it when they did it to Hillary and I don't much like it now.

 

[Stacko]

Jeff Sessions is going to have a press conference at 4PM EST.

 

[dudalb]

This might be yet another example of how it is not so much the initial problem,but the lying about it and the cover up that get you into trouble.

 

[marplots]

Jeff Sessions is going to have a press conference at 4PM EST.

Place your bets!

I'm all in on "stays" - will I lose my money... again? (I went all in on Hillary. )

ETA: Live stream: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...s-press-conference-on-russia-revelations.html

 

[dudalb]

A number of political commentators are noting that his fellow GOPers are not exactly rushing to defend Sessions. I honestly think think that his war on pot and threatened war on online gambling has something to do with this. Both are big losers for the GOP on the whole, and in the end Congress members are political critters.

 

[dudalb]

Place your bets!

I'm all in on "stays" - will I lose my money... again? (I went all in on Hillary. )

He stays, but would not be surprised if he dials back some of his controversial stands.like the War On Mary Jane.

 

[Stacko]

Place your bets!

I'm all in on "stays" - will I lose my money... again? (I went all in on Hillary. )

People usually don't have press conferences to resign.

 

[fuelair]

Did Sessions receive a blowjob from the Russian ambassador? No? Well, all is hunky dory then.

Of course not, he gave the ambassador one!!!!!! republickers do what republickers do!!!!

 

[Minoosh]

We want to be able to interact with foreign governments, it's one of the jobs we task our national government with - international relations. More communication is better.

And if Sessions had just said that, or retorted, "I met with Russian government officials during the campaign, do I count?" he would have been fine. The escape clause for Sessions is contact concerning the election vs. contact during the campaign.

Somehow we've come to a point where "speaking with Russians" is tantamount to calling ISIL. It isn't.

Constant contact, by numerous U.S. officials, with a close ally of Iran and Assad might be cause for concern. We give Russia a pass for aligning with Iran and maybe that's realpolitik at work.

IMO most Americans are babes in the woods when it comes to dealing with highly manipulative regimes. Wanting to be friends, people could babble about all kinds of things. Russia knows better.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

And yet Sessions did not say, I met with ... but it wasn't about the campaign. Sessions' excuse is mighty thin.