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

And you would feel that same way if it weren't Jeff Sessions...but instead, Hillary Clinton.

Right?

 

Did Carson state that he hadn't talked to Putin while a med student under oath?

 

Here you go: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/02/...ons-russia-trump-investigation-democrats.html

 

Sessions just announced he will recuse himself from all present and future investigations into Russia connections with Trump and his campaign.

 

The nation's top prosecutor lying under oath about a matter that is under investigation isn't anything wrong in your view?

You think? So tell us, what part do you claim is "fake news"?

The part where Sessions was an advisor to the Trump campaign since March 2016?

Or the part about how Sessions stated "I did not have communications with the Russians"?

Or the part about how in fact Sessions had (at least) two meeting with the Russians after march 2016 before the election?

- - - Updated - - -

I'm sure you think the top AG lying under oath about a matter under investigation is just hilarious to you, since it is a Republican who is doing it.

Exhibit AP.

 

Your continuing to take the questioning and the answer out of context that is what is fake news. Or how did you put it "lies of omission"?

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

 

That pretty much sums it up. Not that it will do any good for people with an agenda who hear and believe only what they want.

 

The oath was to tell THE TRUTH....THE WHOLE TRUTH...AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.

He could have answered Franken's question with, "Of course I have met with Russian officials. It is part of my job. But I did not discuss matters relating to the campaign."

Assuming it is the truth...it would also be the WHOLE truth...and nothing but the truth.

He didn't.

It is an unfathomable screw up on his part.

Why did he try this "it depends on what the meaning of 'is" is?"

What the hell is this all about?

What is going on here?


Well oiled machine!

 

Sorry, but you don't get to take what was asked and answered out of context to mis-characterize the truth.

What was asked and answered is a matter of record, not what you claim.

SEN. AL FRANKEN: "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?," the Minnesota Democrat asked.

SESSIONS: "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 ."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/02/politics/russia-jeff-sessions-confirmation-hearing/

Flat out lie, under oath.

- - - Updated - - -

Not at all. Your fabricated spin on what was asked and answered does not make my post a lie of omission.

So what part do you claim is "fake news"?

 

you can act stupid if you would like, or you can realize what is happening before your very eyes.

An excerpt from Dem minority leader Schumer from an interview he did with NPR

INSKEEP: I want people to know that you ran the Democratic Senate campaign in 2006...

SCHUMER: Yes.

INSKEEP: ...Which is when Democrats were in the minority and won back the majority.

SCHUMER: Yeah, in four years, we went from 45 senators to 59.

INSKEEP: What lessons, if any, are applicable from that time?

SCHUMER: An unpopular president helps us dramatically. We don't want this president to fail in the sense that - we want to move middle class and people trying to get into the middle class forward. But this is who he seems to be, a hard-right guy. And if he continues on this path, we have a very good chance to do extremely well in the 2018 elections. The number one factor that determines how the party out of power does in the off-year elections is the popularity of the president. Right now, his numbers are historically low. I don't see them getting better. He may get a blip from a speech like this, but that's ephemeral.


http://www.npr.org/2017/03/02/518087536/sen-chuck-schumer-is-ready-for-the-fight

 

Gave you tape, the full context and no lie under oath. So in spite of your attempts to first cherry pick what you quoted leaving out the entirity of the exchange and even posting only half of Sessions response. And in fact STILL quoting out of context.

You ain't got nothing.

 

If it were Clinton all these folks here excusing and defending this lie would be calling for her to be thrown in jail.

- - - Updated - - -

And that's why it's OK for Sessions to lie under oath, because he's a Republican.

Exhibit AQ.

 

Or worse. Perhaps execution.

 

Unlike most liberals before 2009 like Bill Mauerbeing a perfect example, they never heard of Saul Alinsky while many Republicans, most conservatives and your radical leftist knew who Saul Alinsky was. Most liberals are low information, they just do as they are told.

It was the FBI during the "Delano Grape Strikes" who clued me in who Saul Alinsy was and what a community organizer was (to agitate, cause trouble and to divide society...code word for violence is "peaceful")

A few years later during Watergate I heard of a young hippie type of woman with big thick glasses and hair growing from her toes had been fired from trying to
remove the sitting President (Nixon) from office and got curious and again Saul Alinsky name popped up. Her name was Hillary Rodham.

Personally knowing some of the leaders of the counterculture movement (SDS) and in particular Tom Hayden (not a friend but an enemy) again Saul Alinsky name popped up and this was around when the radical left adopted cultural-marxism (political correctness) and Alinkyism. The radical left then became the "New Left" and are today the Democrat establishment.

So around 1974 or 75 wanting to know who the enemy was and what we were dealing with I purchased Saul Alinsky's book "Rules for Radicals" and read it.

 

Saw the tape, read the transcript. When Sessions flat out said "I did not have communications with the Russians" in the context of the time he was an affiliate to the Trump campaign, that was a flat out lie.

We now know he did in fact have communications with the Russians during the time he was an affiliate to the Trump campaign.

 

She testified to the Congress on a direct question about her server if it had been approved and met all the regulations and she stated it was and it did and would never have been approved.

Comey testified they could find no one at the State Department in the office of legal counsel or Cybersecurity who gave such an approval.

So as long as you want to put Clinton up as your example who approved her server and told her it met all rules and regulations which it did not.

 

Not obvious at all.
Quite the opposite.The question was in the context of a Trump campaign worker coming into contact with Russians, but then you already knew that.

Except Franken KNEW, just as you KNOW, that Jeff Sessions did come into contact with Russian diplomats from his position in the Senate.
So why are you trying to drain Session's remark of all context? Oh....right! Because it helps you "win".

Will you sink as low as democrat robot Claire McCaskill in her zeal to condemn Jeff Session with blatant lies? http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/0...l-lied-about-meeting-with-russian-ambassador/

And what did he say?

So how angry and incensed are you then that Hillary Clinton lied under oath? On a scale of one to ten?
And how's that charity of hers' doing?

 

he didn't lie under oath, you can't make stuff up and then run around like you discovered electricity

- - - Updated - - -

Someone might want to tell Pelosi that speaking with the Russian ambassador to the United States is neither exceptional nor incriminating. After all, Kisylak is stationed here. His job is to communicate with U.S. officials. Senators take meetings with foreign diplomats all the time.

Case in point: Democratic Senator Claire McCaskell. After criticizing Sessions for meeting with the Russian ambassador and claiming she had never done so in her 10 years on the Armed Services Committee, it turns out that her own tweets betrayed her. The record shows she bragged on social media about two of her meetings with him. Don’t be ashamed, Claire. It is not a crime to speak to a Russian.


http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017...sessions-did-not-commit-perjury-or-crime.html

 

Is that true? Is over that thirdty five diplomats of my country have been expelled from United States? Is over one puny organization and one citizen the Federation gets dirt smeared over it over and over? Seriously?

That cannot be true.

That would be insane.

 

Only when Andrew Breitbart speaks from his grave, wouldn't you ?

Breitbart died on March 1st, 2012 (RIP)

 

Government. Not russians in general. He had been asked about government, he answered about government. Ambassador of country - is not a member of government. Pretty clear, plain, and simple.

 

We got a year and a half of non-stop investigations, smears, lies and blather about her stupid server.

We can't even imagine what the case would have been if she had flat out lied about her involvement in an ongoing investigation as to the involvement of a hostile foreign nation in an election.

But since Sessions is a Republican, no big deal.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, and he had in fact met with the Russian government while an affiliate of Trump.

Flat out lie.

- - - Updated - - -

Why would you think I was talking about Andrew Breitbart?

- - - Updated - - -

Sure he did.

SEN. AL FRANKEN: "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?," the Minnesota Democrat asked.

SESSIONS: "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 ."

Flat out lie.

Why does someone need to tell Pelosi that?

 

Well, prove the accusation first. Not guilty unles proven. Article 11 of Human Rights verified by United Nations.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

- - - Updated - - -

Proof of that accusation? Evidence? Where?

 

The main difference between a radical Democrat and a RINO "Republican" is that the Democrat will stand in front of you and knife you in the guts. A RINO "Republican" moves around you and stabs you in the BACK.

Copperheads and Water moccasins, although they look somewhat different, are both poisonous snakes. Use the same caliber of shotgun on both of them....

 

His words are a matter of record.

No it wasn't. Why would I "already know" what is not true?

The question is a matter of record.

1) Prove Franken knew that Session's was communicating with the Russians while he was a Trump affiliate.

2) If he did, so what?

If you are accusing me of lying, quote my language that you claim is a lie.

Jeez, don't you even bother to read posts? What he said has been posted scores of times.

SESSIONS: "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 ." [/I]

But he had had communications with the Russians.

Flat out lie.

What does that have to do with Sessions' lie?