Sessions met with Russian envoy twice last year, encounters he later did not disclose

No, his response to Franken was, "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.”

 

We've already established he was a Trump affliliate.

The question asked was: "If there was any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this (2016) campaign, what would you do?"

It did not ask if there were any meeting in the capacity as a Trump affliate, but whether there was any communication, period.

Sessions answer: "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 did not have communications with the Russians."

He did not condition his answer to whether or not it was in his capacity as a Trump affiliate.

A flat out lie, under oath.

 

I stand corrected. I think he was on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

 

They met at the GOP convention. Why was a known Russian spy, a top spy, at the GOP convention?

 

Lock him up! Lock him up!

 

Maybe he liked the uber-friendly environment.

"Oh! You have a Russian accent. I LOVE the Russians. Have you meet that truly great and inspiring leader, Vladmir Putin?"

"Yes, on a daily basis. You love Russians. Well, let me give you my card Mr. Sessions. We should really talk again some time."

"GREAT!"

 

There was this as well...

Before a single vote was cast, the election was fixed by GOP and Trump operatives
http://www.gregpalast.com/election-stolen-heres/

 

See my post with a link immediately above. I even cited Breitbart. That's like the gospel to you guys, isn't it?

Why should I explain that? I never claimed Session should be forbidden from talking to the Russians.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course.

That's why it's OK for the AG to lie under oath about his communications with the Russians. And he is a Republican after all, so it's OK, right?

Exhibit AM.

 

Wrong again. At least you are extremely consistent.

I oppose "progressives", the people who want to overthrow the nations system of governance. That threat takes greater priority than some largely politically hyped triviality promoted by those very same "progressives".

 

The Russians are coming !!!! The Russians are coming!!!!
Would you guys please stop, many of you probably have children that would laugh at you if they heard this conversation

LOLOLOLOL

 

1) Prove it.

2) So what.

So its OK for Republicans to lie under oath because Lynch met Clinton?

Republican moral relativism values for you. Once again.

 

Sessions obviously meant that he did not have communications with Russian officials as a Trump advisor.
Because clearly in his duties as a Senator he had lots of meetings and contact with many foreign diplomats. Duh!
Is that what Franken wanted to know? If Jeff Sessions had ever talked to a Russian?

When did this newly found zeal for the truth strike you? Oh, right........after Hillary Clinton dropped out of sight. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8FtqzdiYFU

 

That's pathetically weak!

In order to accept your "logic" one would have to assume that Jeff Sessions is two different people simultaneously! The notion is idiotic. But that's the way Trumpster rationalizations are these days.

As for the Post providing the transcript of Frankin's question, it didn't have to. The video is widely available, and very clear.

 

The AG lies under oath. No big deal, he's a Republican.

LOLOLOLOLOL

Exhibit AN.

 

Which does not change the fact that the Russians tried to affect the US election, or remove Trump's long standing associations with a a series of shady Russian gangsters.

 

Likely for the same reason Loretta Lynch met with Bill Clinton while the Clinton Foundation and Hillary were under investigation by the FBI, to talk about their grand kids and muffin recipes. Why do you have any evidence to the contrary?

 

Good point. You never heard a single Democrat criticizing their Messiah for schmoozing the Russian president and telling him about how he could be more "flexible" after the 2012 election. They are just a bunch of hateful hypocrites who want to destroy Trump no matter what it takes. Don't get me wrong, if I thought that Sessions had done anything to hurt the United States then I'd say to throw him in prison. But these Democrats are all howling for him to resign and it hasn't been shown that he did anything wrong. I didn't think things could get worse after they ambushed Flynn but now it has happened. And on top of everything else, like you said, nobody has even shown any proof that the Russians did anything to anybody or for anybody in the first place. This is all a huge pile of fake news.

 

Must be the rush and fox spin of the hour.

1) Lynch recused herself.

2) Lynch did not lie under oath about it.

What hypocrisy? You mean like 7 different Republican investigations on Benghazi and Clinton's emails, and nothing on donald's Russian connections?

- - - Updated - - -

OK, you don't care that the top prosecutor lied under oath because he's not a progressive.

Exhibit AO.

 

Anyone who puts a foreign nation (or their own personal gain) ahead of the USA is no longer loyal to the USA. It is not a right or left, or even an R or D, issue, as such people permeate both parties. Its more accurate to call these people "progressives", as that is what they are.

 

Does it look as funny as it sounds to me when you read it back to yourself?

What will it be next week,

"Donald tells Iran they can have Nukes if they let him build hotels in Tehran"

LOLOLOL

 

I have addressed that issue before - mainly from the point of view that murder is still murder even if it has some positive results. Are we going to resort to murder to solve social problems?

 

No, he obviously meant "I did not have communications with the Russians."

Then his answer should have been "I had communications with the Russians," not "I did not have communications with the Russians."

What Franken wanted to know was "If there was any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this (2016) campaign, what would you do?"

Nothing new for me. When did this <Mod Edit-rule 2> strike you? Oh yeah, when a Republican took over the administration.

Exhibit AP.

 

next weeks NY Times headline

"Ben Carson talked to Putin when he was a med student looking for work after graduation"

you guys are killing me, keep um coming

 

Sessions is recusing himself from any investigations so that settles that and he fully answered the questions about any meetings.

Let's review that actual questioning IN CONTEXT as some here are desperate to cut out of any discussion.

[video=youtube;2BpgHcanjCQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BpgHcanjCQ[/video]

As he said the entire thingy about Trump SURROGATES have CONSTANT contact with Russian OPERATIVES had JUST broken the wires, no one knew it was coming and it was an off the wall question by Franken that he was quite surprised by it. Sessions's answer was perfectly fair and reasonable to context of the question and the meeting was perfectly normal for a Senator.

End of story.

 

He recused himself. It was the right thing to do.