AG Sessions spoke with Russian officials

His statement shows he considers himself to be a part of the campaign as a surrogate. He further states he had no communications with the russians. That is false. His press statements have been more specific and less demonstrably false.

 

No generalization here. Just an inability on your part to remember what you post.

"Tillerson, Flynn, and Sessions all had contact with Putin"

And now you are using the argumentative fallacy of Red Herring to try and direct the discussion to another topic. Also known as "deflecting".

 

I just read one of the meetings was to let the ambassador "Get to know" Kushner and Sessions after the Trump win....it lasted less than 15 minutes.

How do you get to know someone in 15 minutes?

ANSWER- You already know them and just need to chat.

 

Have you actually read Franken's question?

go here: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4659119/franken-sessions-exchange-russia

Franken was asking about those in the campaign having contact with Russia during the campaign. Sessions answered the question Franken asked. You may not like the answer but it was not misleading at all!

- - - Updated - - -

Has anyone else noticed how much Franken would look like Joe McCarthy if Franken didn't have a full head of hair?

 

Sounds like treason, and lying before Congress. Sessions has to go....

 

Oh, I assumed that you ment Trump himself having contact with Putin. I apologize, I did not realize that you were talking about those three. It didn't mean to change the subject. Tillerson, Flynn, and Sessions did have direct and indirect contact with Putin, which I find a strange consistency within Trump's campaign. Tillerson was given a reward by Putin, as well as business deals, and Flynn and Sessions reportedly spoke about lifting sanctions on Russia. This could, at best, mean a potential conflict of interest. At worst, perhaps treason. It is unknown whether or not what they did was done with ill intent, nor any intent at all, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't grant them the same suspicion as given to most other politicians. Now what you are doing is not arguing for any point, only pointing out the mistakes in mine, which can be a good strategy, but you are still leaving me to make some convincing points. If there were spectators, they would be much more critical of my argument thanks to your mention of my argument's flaws, but you are still allowing me to convince those 'spectators', because you are not arguing your own point. As well as that, you are allowing me to adapt and improve my argument by pointing out it's mistakes, which I could fix.

 

That is irrelevant to whether the statement was misleading. The disclosure was voluntary, but forming part of the rationale for his answer. It did not directly address the question, but that is neither here nor there. An important and relevant statement was made under oath that was factually incorrect. .

 

Franken: "If there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what would you do?"
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."

It is definitely not unreasonable to consider what Sessions said to be untrue considering what he said wasn't true. We know he said something that wasn't true under oath, but this could very well be an honest mistake. This is why we need to have an independent investigation, and why Sessions needs to remove himself from said investigation. If everyone in the campaign and the administration is innocent, then the investigation will work to their favor to help clear their name. However, if an investigation were to reveal further misconduct, then those responsible need to be removed from power.

 

I agree with you there, but it is not a sufficient remedy. The un-truth was made by him specifically in relation to his appointment, and appeared to form part of his rationale for his answer "i don't know what I would do", and this answer was accepted and his appointment confirmed.

It is at least uncertain whether his answer would have been satisfactory if that statement was not made, and therefore his very appointment may be regarded (to use court parlance) "unsafe".

 

Sorry, I was speaking about the current Administration that has obviously been corrupted.

 

Let's not forget Manafort as well

 

I agree it's pathetic, I'll even agree that it's from both parties. And given Russia posturing with the missiles, it's even clearer that perhaps the intention of converting to the East may have been a dream in futility. Perhaps, in spite of not wanting to join the war theater, maybe our best course of action is to ally with our European allies in a strong coalition against Putin to tell him "no".

 

This is deliberately twisting Sessions's words (by leaving out that it was on a temporary basis) and DURING that time, he had no communications to effect. What this amounts to, is Slander. How you can slander another American citizen for political purpose, is outright sad. In 2017, we're weaker as a country. But not for the reasons you think.

 

Seriously, this is exactly how I read it. One would have to adopt assumptions in order to believe he was not lying, by supposing he must have meant things he did not say at the time or assuming he has a horrible memory. I understand that your partisanship has blinded you.

What do you mean by temporary basis? Him being a surrogate? Doesn't matter even if so because he directly said he did not communicate with Russia.

 

Let me try to simplify it even more for you: Sessions was not working full-time(or even part time) with the Trump Administration. And he himself said as much, in the EXACT testimony. I'm not reading anything other than what he's said. Sessions has had rare correspondence with the Trump Team, and what he said was: During that time he was working with the campaign, he had no discussions.

During THAT time. Which is factual, none of the conversations took place while Sessions was a part of the Trump team. So what this is, is SLANDER. You have Senators(Democratic ones anyway), acting like perpetual children. And speaking of partisanship, it's your partisanship that is excusing this childish behavior.

 

Intentional or not...he needs to resign. He obviously lied

 

Session's perjury is not dependent upon him being a part of the Trump team. He said he had no communications with the Russians. This was in response to a question referring to "the course of" the campaign, not Sessions involvement in it. Sessions ended his response by saying he couldn't comment (on others involved on the campaign).

 

Wrong pew in the church of politics.
It's like looking for the pumpkin drop box used by Democrat commies.
see: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hiss/pumpkinp.html

 

Based on the way the question was presented(and others here have also pointed it out), it's logical to assume that what Al Franken was asking(in his unique political way) is was there any "collaboration" with the Russians. And Sessions neatly, properly and ethically responded to the question. This is Democratic Propaganda, because the party refuses to even participate in our federal government at this point. That to ME is the much larger story.

 

What are you talking about? That is from WWII.

 

Yes it is. Look at Franken's full quote. He is discussing hacking and bed pissing not Senators seeing the Russian ambassador as a Senator. Senators do that all the time. That is why we have diplomatic relations with them. Do you want us to sever diplomatic relations with Russia and throw out their ambassadors? If no one can speak to their diplomats, what is the point of having them here?

 

And he said he had no contact with the Russians.

Pretty damn simple. He lied. The deeper question is, why?

- - - Updated - - -

Then why did Sessions lie and deny having any contact?

You know, these questions are prepared as are the answers. This was not a "whoopsies!"

- - - Updated - - -

Manafort, Flynn, now Sessions...

 

Sessions explicitly answered outside of the parameters of the question. Which, as a lawyer, he should know is foolish. He wasn't asked if he was a surrogate, and yet he prefaced his statement saying that he was. An honest answer would be: "I spoke to Russians but not about the campaign," (if true), or even, I did not talk to Russians about the campaign. That is what he has recently said, but not what he said under oath that day. His statement was clearly that he has not communicated with Russians during the Trump campaign. That is false.

 

Please show the readers where Jeff Sessions lied.....Do you have documentary evidence or tapes to back that up?

 

Collaboration does not mean "contact". If Sessions was barred from any contact with the Russians, that should have been laid out to him. Clearly, that wasn't. So let me repeat: This is slander and propaganda, and Republicans should respond by telling Democrats that we won't consider legislation they sponsor, until they behave like grownups. Punish them the hard way for derailing government.