AG Sessions and the Russians

[MillCreek]

So is there anything to the issues regarding AG Sessions and the Russians?  Is this going to be akin to the General Flynn situation?

[Ben]

If what I'm seeing now that I do the "wait at least 24 hours" thing is true, he was specifically asked if he talked to the ruskies about the election, so his answer was true and not misleading. He had the same interactions with the ruskie ambassador that several of his accusers did.

Also I see the NYT has stated, "We don't have the facts, but Sessions needs to go". So there's a lot of fake news still making the rounds on this.

[MechAg94]

To my knowledge, there is was nothing illegal or wrong about what Flynn did.  His issue was in his communication with Pence.  The mistake was taking that action such that is appeared the press attacks were successful. 

I think they will just need to weather it for a while with Sessions.  Many other Congressmen had the same contacts he had from what I have heard.  The media and Dems are trying to take out Trumps cabinet officials and he needs make sure it goes no further.

[Monkeyleg]

He was on the Armed Services committee, for crying out loud. One of the "talks" he had with the Russian ambassador was when a group of amassadors, including the Russian, approached Sessions at a Heritage Foundation/RNC function.

The first Republican to call for Sessions to recuse himself? If you said Lindsay Graham, take a bow.

I'm so p****d about this.

[Scout26]

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/cnn-host-pushing-guest-to-say-trumps-committed-treason-doesnt-get-the-answer-she-expected/


Just so everyone understands.  Trump (and anyone on his campaign) could have stood in the middle of Red Square with Putin and every news organization on earth and said "Hey Vlad, can you give all the dirt you have on Hillary ?"   and Putin could have said,  "Da Comrade, the KGB, errrr FSB will send you everything we have on Hillary and her campaign."

And no law would have been broken.


As the former AG points out in this video.  Where's the crime ?  What statute has been violated?   The democrats and press act as if simply being in the same room with a Russian is a capital offense.   Last I checked we are not at war with Russia, nor do we have an adversarial relationship with them,  just normal diplomatic relations where sometimes our interests are mutual, and other times where they aren't.   Yes, I know Ukraine and all that.  But we were mucking around in Ukraine's election, which would be like Russia mucking around in Canada's.  We (being Obama and Clinton) created the problem.

Anywho.  I see no wrong doing here.  Flynn's mistake was in lying to Pence.  That's it.   

[Hawkmoon]

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-03-02/sessions-removes-himself-from-russia-inquiry-over-meeting-envoy

Did Loretta Lynch recuse herself from the investigation of Hillary Clinton? No, she didn't. She hedged and said she would rely on the advice of her subordinates, but she did NOT recuse herself. And after having a private meeting with Bill on the airplane, she had a much more obvious conflict of interest than Sessions.

[DittoHead]

It takes a Bill Clinton level of semantic games to claim that he didn't lie when he stated

I did not have any communications with the Russians

You can argue that given the context of the question he was trying to say something else, but what he actually said is quite clearly not true. Being a lawyer and experienced politician under oath you would think he would know to speak a little bit more clearly.

In retrospect, I should have slowed down and said I did meet with one Russian official a couple of times, and that was the Russian ambassador

[makattak]

It takes a Bill Clinton level of semantic games to claim that he didn't lie when he stated
You can argue that given the context of the question he was trying to say something else, but what he actually said is quite clearly not true. Being a lawyer and experienced politician under oath you would think he would know to speak a little bit more clearly.

Ah, yes. Strip out the context and then call it a lie for political expediency.

Here, let me put the context back in:

Franken: "CNN just published a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president-elect last week that included information that quote, ‘Russian operatives claimed to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump.’ These documents also allegedly say quote, ‘There was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump's surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.’

"Now, again, I'm telling you this as it's coming out, so you know. But if it's true, it's obviously extremely serious and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?"

Sessions: "Senator Franken, 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, and I'm unable to comment on it."

CLEARLY we ought to hang the man! For stating that, as a surrogate for the campaign her did not have communications with the Russians. Specifically, those that were "exchange of information during the campaign between Trump's surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government."

But, as per usual, we have to pretend that nothing else was ever said around the question. He just said he never communicated with any Russians, ever, in the history of his life. Swearsy.

[Ben]

It takes a Bill Clinton level of semantic games to claim that he didn't lie when he stated
You can argue that given the context of the question he was trying to say something else, but what he actually said is quite clearly not true. Being a lawyer and experienced politician under oath you would think he would know to speak a little bit more clearly.

FRANKEN: OK. CNN has just published a story and I’m telling you this about a news story that’s just been published. I’m not expecting you to know whether or not it’s true or not. But CNN just published a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president-elect last week that included information that quote, “Russian operatives claimed to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump.” These documents also allegedly say quote, “There was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump’s surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.” Now, again, I’m telling you this as it’s coming out, so you know. But if it’s true, it’s obviously extremely serious and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?

SESSIONS: Senator Franken, 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, and I’m unable to comment on it.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/445421/why-would-jeff-sessions-lie-answer-question-he-wasnt-asked

Sessions never met with the ruskies as a campaign surrogate. It's pretty clear where the line of questioning was going and what its intent was.


EDIT: Dammit - there seems to be an APS campaign lately to get the same comment as me in before I do while I'm typing said comment. Makattak beat me to it.

[DittoHead]

Context does nothing to help him here since Franken didn't ask about him having contact with Russians, the question he asked was about how he would perform his duties as AG.
Sessions stupidly volunteered the incorrect information about his not having had any contact personally. If he had said:

• I never spoke to the Russians about the election

or

• I never spoke to the Russians as a representative of the Trump Campaign

or

• I only spoke to the Russians in relation to my duties on the Armed Services Committee

those are all true, or at least hard to prove untrue. That is not what he said though.

[makattak]

Context does nothing to help him here since Franken didn't ask about him having contact with Russians, the question he asked was about how he would perform his duties as AG.
Sessions stupidly volunteered the incorrect information about his not having had any contact personally. If he had said:

• I never spoke to the Russians about the election

or

• I never spoke to the Russians as a representative of the Trump Campaign

or

• I only spoke to the Russians in relation to my duties on the Armed Services Committee

those are all true, or at least hard to prove untrue. That is not what he said though.

Keep grasping at those straws. In Franken's convoluted question, he accused Trump surrogates of talking back and forth with the Russians.

Sessions, AS A SURROGATE OF THE CAMPAIGN, cleary realized he was implicated by the question and said: "I don't know anything about the bogus story that you just quoted from the fake news site CNN. I was a surrogate of the campaign and didn't do that crap, so I have no idea what you're talking about." (Note, I translated from the respectful, non-committal speech that people use when trying not to tell idiots that they are idiots.)

Of course, reading comprehension is a disqualifier for left wing propoganda.

[MechAg94]

I caught a little of Rush talking about that today.  In the context of Franken's question, Session's response sounded like he was referring to contact with the Russians about the fake report regarding Trump hiring prostitutes.

[DittoHead]

You can re-interpret what he said into what he supposedly meant but as I said before, he should know enough to speak clearly when he's under oath.

Sessions never met with the ruskies as a campaign surrogate.

It depends on what the meaning of the word 'as' is. If 'as' means in an official capacity, representing the campaign that is one thing. If it means currently holding that position that's an untrue statement.

It's not like he met with a Russian 5 or 10 years ago, before he was a surrogate. He may not have been acting as a surrogate, not representing the Trump campaign in that meeting, but he met with the Russian ambassador after he had been named chair of Trump's National Security Advisory Committee and was most certainly a surrogate. I'm not sure if he has special hats or something that label what position he's acting in during these meetings, if so that could certainly clear things up.

[grampster]

News Flash!!!    It has been revealed today that the conversation that Sessions had with the Russian Ambassador was about their grandchildren. 

(I didn't post this.  230RN did)

[Ben]

You can re-interpret what he said into what he supposedly meant but as I said before, he should know enough to speak clearly when he's under oath.

I didn't know lack of clarity was illegal. Again, the question was clearly about collusion between Trump's people and the Russians. Do you have a link to any evidence that implicates Sessions as colluding with the Russians to help Trump win the election? You can argue optics if you want, but we're still an "innocent until proven guilty" country. Speculation is not evidence of guilt.

[DittoHead]

I didn't know lack of clarity was illegal.

And that is exactly what will save him from perjury charges. He can claim it was a misunderstanding, or he misspoke, or didn't explain himself properly but wasn't intentionally lying.

Again, the question was clearly about collusion between Trump's people and the Russians. Do you have a link to any evidence that implicates Sessions as colluding with the Russians to help Trump win the election? You can argue optics if you want, but we're still an "innocent until proven guilty" country. Speculation is not evidence of guilt.

There's no real issue with the meeting itself or him colluding or any of that.
My only point was that what he said was not true and trying to bend or reinterpret the language to make it true is laughable, much like Clinton's was back in the day. Even Sessions admits his statement needs correction.

[TechMan]

Sen. Franken:

"CNN just published a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president-elect last week that included information that quote 'Russian operatives claimed to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump.' These documents also allegedly say quote, 'there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.'"

"Again, I'm telling you this is just coming out, so, you know. But, if it's true it's obviously extremely serious. And if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?"

Then-Sen. Jeff Sessions:

"Senator Franken, 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, and I'm unable to comment on it."

It looks to me that is was saying that as a surrogate for the Trump campaign he did not have communications with the Russians.

[Monkeyleg]

Rush, Mark Levin, and Laura Ingraham have all made the very persuasive argument that this was all planned by Obama's people late last year. Their theory is that Obama's people gathered all sorts of information such as wiretaps, and now have it waiting for the best time to release it.

General Flynn was not a government official when he spoke to the Russian ambassador. The CIA would not be allowed to identify him in any transcript of the conversation, since he was a civilian. So the leak was not only illegal in that classified information was released to the press, but it was also illegal because it identified Flynn.

Sessions' conversation with the Russian ambassador took place while he was on the Armed Forces committee (many members of which had conversations with the Russian ambassador, including Democrats). How did a transcript of a CIA wiretap of his call get into the hands of the media, or Al Franken, or both?

It would seem that the Obama administration illegally collected classified information on members of the incoming administration for the purpose of damaging those members politically. I'm sure there's a crime in there somewhere.

Sessions honestly answered a question in the context in which it was asked. His contact with the Russian ambassador, as well as representatives of other countries, was part of his job.

This is beyond belief.

[Perd Hapley]

Rush, Mark Levin, and Laura Ingraham have all made the very persuasive argument that this was all planned by Obama's people late last year. Their theory is that Obama's people gathered all sorts of information such as wiretaps, and now have it waiting for the best time to release it.

General Flynn was not a government official when he spoke to the Russian ambassador. The CIA would not be allowed to identify him in any transcript of the conversation, since he was a civilian. So the leak was not only illegal in that classified information was released to the press, but it was also illegal because it identified Flynn.

Sessions' conversation with the Russian ambassador took place while he was on the Armed Forces committee (many members of which had conversations with the Russian ambassador, including Democrats). How did a transcript of a CIA wiretap of his call get into the hands of the media, or Al Franken, or both?

It would seem that the Obama administration illegally collected classified information on members of the incoming administration for the purpose of damaging those members politically. I'm sure there's a crime in there somewhere.

Sessions honestly answered a question in the context in which it was asked. His contact with the Russian ambassador, as well as representatives of other countries, was part of his job.

This is beyond belief.

Trump seems like the kind to push back on such things, and move the narrative to Democrats' wrong-doing. And also move forward with the prosecution of HRC. I have to wonder how much Comey might prevent (or already is preventing) such things.

[RoadKingLarry]

Remember, the facts of the case are irrelevant, it is the seriousness of the allegations that matter.

[Perd Hapley]

And that is exactly what will save him from perjury charges. He can claim it was a misunderstanding, or he misspoke, or didn't explain himself properly but wasn't intentionally lying.There's no real issue with the meeting itself or him colluding or any of that.
My only point was that what he said was not true and trying to bend or reinterpret the language to make it true is laughable, much like Clinton's was back in the day. Even Sessions admits his statement needs correction.

OK. If you wanted to say that he spoke an untruth, I wouldn't argue with that. But there's a difference between saying something that's not true, and lying. "Lie" implies intent to deceive.

[TommyGunn]

You realize that this whole thing descends from a phony report made up by the C.I.A.  for the sole purpose of demonstrating to the future president why he actually did need regular briefings by Intel people to keep him abreast of what is  (ahem....)  is fake news and what is real?
I wonder if Franken knows this?
Or does this even matter to the demorats?

[Hawkmoon]

My only point was that what he said was not true and trying to bend or reinterpret the language to make it true is laughable, much like Clinton's was back in the day. Even Sessions admits his statement needs correction.

In the context of the question, what he said WAS true. If what he said wasn't true, he would be guilty of perjury, and even you don't seem to think he is guilty of perjury. And I don't think he admitted that his statement "needs" correction -- he said he might have answered more slowly to be clearer. There's a difference between "adding clarity" and "correction."

[Monkeyleg]

It would seem that the intelligence community is involved, as they're against Trump.

[Perd Hapley]

When I consider that he was being questioned about a silly conspiracy theory, by a silly man with a silly voice, I can't blame him for failing to take the questions very seriously.