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

Lying under oath is no longer a disqualifier remember? Even when you do it in a federal court and a federal grand jury.

Certainly not before Congress as in who in the State Department approved Hillary's shadow email server and said it met all the rules and regulations? You know what she claimed under oath?

 

And you still selectively edit it to leave out the context..........we know.

- - - Updated - - -

Who at the state department approved it's use and told her it met all the rules and regulations as she testified?

 

You will claim it worked out pretty good for you guys when you did and in fact were desperately trying to elect his pathological liar wife so what is your complaint now about pathological liars?

 

The most important thing is,
what are they talking about.

 

I would prefer evidence.

 

After investigating the entire matter, it's clear from context that Sessions was not lying. The left has fabricated a fantasy yet again.

I should have known.

 

You are right on the button on this, Iriemon...but I doubt you will crack through the concrete.

These are the same people who applauded the dozens of investigations into Hillary Clinton...for damn near nothing. But here...they are willing to go to the mattresses for the Fuehrer and his underlings.

What a sad state of affairs.

 

He most assuredly was not telling "the truth...THE WHOLE TRUTH...and nothing but the truth."

But for you people...that doesn't matter. He is not Hillary or Bill Clinton...nor Barack Obama...so he gets a pass.

It is unfortunate that so many people on the American right have become the "useful idiots" needed by a wanna-be dictator at times like this.

 

what will this "special committee do, call the Russians in to testify? LOLOLOL

the whole thing is just silly, and soon the left will grow bored, OR
and I hope for the OR
they will continue this ridiculous pursuit and Americans will change the channel every time they click over and CNN is talking about it, AGAIN.
Already happening I'm sure.

check the scoreboard Democrats, still 306 to 225

- - - Updated - - -

306 to 225 LOLOLOLOLO

 

Yup...one of the closest Electoral College wins ever.

Only 12 have been closer; 45 have been greater.

And there is the matter of losing the popular vote by almost 3,000,000.

So what is your point?

 

He did not lie under oath or at all. He answered the questions openly and honestly. And everyone who examines it, knows it. It is a lie to say he lied. These facts are self evident. Trumps was so right when he said you've overplayed your hand, essentially making asses of yourselves.

 

The two things are not at all alike. As I am sure you know very well.

 

Good point. The DP has no standing to complain about "pathological liars".

But, after reading the Franken question in full context it is clear that Sessions answered the question truthfully. All reports to the contrary are just the latest Fake News.

 

An interesting article about this. It's not "nothing" as the right is claiming and it's not "everything" that the left is claiming... it's somewhere in the middle.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...uestions-about-when-senators-meet-ambassador/

 

Sessions did NOT tell the whole truth...which is one of the things he swore he would do.

The reason he did NOT tell the whole truth is either because he wanted to hide something (he lied) or he is an idiot.

I, personally, would prefer that he not be an idiot. But whether he is an idiot or a liar...he really does not belong in the job of Attorney General.

The fact that the right is so able to overlook this stuff is not surprising. The amount of hyprocrisy the right is showing at this point is overwhelming.

 

There's enough evidence to force him to recuse himself despite getting the public support from the President.

 

Now, if only he had made that statement at the time of his confirmation hearing - when he was under oath - then we wouldn't have had this discussion at all.

You referenced the Loretta Lynch - Bill Clinton conversation. You do realize that Lynch faced a great deal of backlash there as well and it forced her to essentially recuse herself from the email investigation by publicly stating that she would accept the recommendation from the FBI, right?

And the same thing happened here. So that's good.

 

Perfectly reasonable for him to do so.

 

I'm still seeing where what is supposed to be our honest and accurate press is taking the one little line totally out of context, heck not even printing the entire sentence in which it is contained, to try and make it look like he is lying.

And people fall for it.

 

I agree. Recusal was the most likely outcome from the report on Sessions' misleading statement during the confirmation hearing. A perjury investigation is not really warranted.

 

She had the Democrats rally the wagons around her when in fact Obama should have demanded her resignation on the spot and no she did NOT recuse herself in actuality or even essentially. She attempted to punt the ball to someone whose position it was did not include a final determination on prosecution but her involvement was never determined to be a recusal.

- - - Updated - - -

The decision to do so was made before this became and issue and had nothing to do with it. It was merely because he was involved in the campaign at all. And there was no perjury in the context of the entire exchange and question asked and his response. He did the right now time to move but the Democrats are so desperate to find a way to bring down the administration they won't no matter how silly they look and no matter how dishonestly the cherry pick the quote as we see repeatedly even right here in this thread.

 

Should have demanded her resignation because she had a private conversation with Bill Clinton? That seems rather irrational. And I still believe that her public statement of abiding by the recommendation from the FBI investigation when she originally retained the full authority of refusing their recommendation was essentially a recusal. We can argue about whether she would have needed to go further if the FBI did recommend prosecution (I tend to believe that she would have needed to appoint someone else to handle the case), but that's not really necessary.

The quote does not need to be cherry picked to look damaging. He voluntarily stated that he did not meet with any Russian officials. He did, in fact, meet with Russian officials. Viewing the circumstances in the light most favorable to Sessions, he misled the committee.

And no, the decision to recuse himself was not decided on before this report. Or, if it was decided on, that decision was never made public. So the end result is the same. The report of Sessions misleading committee while under oath forced him to publicly recuse himself.

- - - Updated - - -

So transparent that it forced Sessions to publicly recuse himself from the Russian investigation.

 

I'm glad to see the Left is looking at this as a win. It shows they forgot what winning means.

 

No it doesn't in the context, a secret meeting where the press was denied access coming at the end of an investigation in which he was involved along with his wife through the Clinton foundation. She did not recues herself PERIOD. The FBI director still reported to her and it was not the job of the FBI to make the determination as to prosecution. Obama should have fired her on the spot.

It is the ONLY way it looks bad, the entire spontaneous exchange over information that had JUST hit the news wires which Sessions had not even seen was based on surrogates acting on behalf of the campaign meeting repeatedly with Russian officials about the campaign. Sessions did not do that as he stated in his off the cuff answer. There was no attempt to mislead the committee.

Go read his statement, they were already planning to recusal had been meeting with the legal counsels office and other DOJ officials.

 

First lets get the FACTS up front so there is no "misunderstanding" (although the haters and liars will not let facts stand in their way):

This is what Sessions said in the news conference:

"First, about the comments that I made to the committee that have been said to be incorrect and false, let me be clear. I never had meetings with Russian operatives or Russian intermediaries about the Trump campaign. And the idea that I was part of a quote, “continuing exchange of information” during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government is totally false."​

And the transcript of his statements to the Senate prove he did not lie. Those transcripts are all over this thread and the media, no honest person still maintains Sessions lied.

And in the same news conference, Sessions then said this:

"Secondly, at my confirmation hearing, I promised that I would do this. If a specific matter arose where I believed my impartiality might reasonably be questioned, I would “consult with the department ethics officials regarding the most appropriate way to proceed,” close quote......“I have now decided to recuse myself from any existing or future investigations of any matter relating in any way to the campaigns for president of the United States.”

I went on to say, “this announcement should not be interpreted as confirmation of the existence of any investigation or suggestive of the scope of any such investigation because we in the Department of Justice resist confirming or denying the very existence of investigations.”

So, in the end, I have followed the right procedure, just as I promised the committee I would, ......."​

Sessions did what an honest person would do as opposed to what Holder and Lynch did. It does not imply guilt as the haters want to claim (although the haters and liars will not let facts stand in their way).