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

[CaliCat 3,957]

4 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Go back and check the context of the questions.  It was useless of Senator Franken to ask if he talked to foreign ambassadors as I think it is clear he has, the question was regarding talking to the Russian ambassador about the campaign which he didn't.  Why would Senator Sessions say he didn't talk to a foreign ambassador in general.  Since no one questioned him further, I think everyone there understood the context of the question.

 

Keep digging, but at least Sessions has more ethics than former AG Lynch, at least he publicly recused himself from the farscical investigation into the Russians possible hacking of a private organization.  Former AG Lynch did no such thing after her little clandestine meeting with former Presient Bill Clinton.

 

It might also do you some good to check the context of the answer, since Sessions was being confirmed, not Franken. Everything indicates that Sessions lied under oath, which in the US is considered perjury. You need to look at this issue from a US perspective. 

[CaliCat 3,957]

3 hours ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

All of a sudden the MDL cares about testimony under oath to congress and AG's  having the appearance of ethics. 

 

Where were you win Lynch was meeting with Clinton on the tarmac and Hillary was lying repeated times under oath

 

What a dramatic turn around from 6 months ago.

 

Their hypocrisy is a stench in the nostrils of freedom 

 

You may be right, but the MDRs attitude of letting the so-called president and his cabinet get a free pass on these issues, signals to the American people that it was an acceptable practice then, as it is now.

 

It is the ultimate hypocrisy when the Birther In Chief could turn out to be the Manchurian candidate himself. 

 

More than anyone else, this administration should be upholding the standards it has demanded for the previous one. Any other course of action indicates they were simply jealous and moved by spite, as they emulate the same behavior that until a few months ago they condemned.

 

Trump is not draining the swamp. He is just replacing the fauna. 

 

[Dashinka 23,421]

1 hour ago, CaliCat said:

 

It might also do you some good to check the context of the answer, since Sessions was being confirmed, not Franken. Everything indicates that Sessions lied under oath, which in the US is considered perjury. You need to look at this issue from a US perspective. 

I did, and I also understood the question being asked was in regard to the supposed Russian interference in the election, and Sessions answered accordingly.  Of course I didn't go into this discussion with preconceived notions.

[Dashinka 23,421]

4 hours ago, Dakine10 said:

  Maybe because Sessions answered 'no'. It's a clear answer, doesn't mean it's an honest one.

Isn't that part of the Senator's job to verify the answers given.  My opinion is that the reason Senator Franken didn't do this is because he understood the question and the answer.

[Dashinka 23,421]

4 hours ago, smilesammich said:

recuse herself from what? there's no comparison. honestly, i like chatting with you but i don't see the point if youre not willing to objectively look at what's going on. i dont understand why you say "keep trying" to me like this is all dems trying to find something, anything on the righteous donald. reasonable thinking people understand why an investigation needs to take place, and it's not just over one franken question to sessions.

Just that little investigation the FBI was conducting on Hillary Clinton.  Have we forgotten that this meeting former AG Lynch had with Bill Clinton was just days before the DOJ was going to come out with their findings?

 

As to the keep trying comment, I think that is obvious.  It is apparent the Democrats with their friends in the press are going to spin any story negatively.  Frankly it is getting boring.  Investigate away, then we will start hearing how the Democrats are wasting all this taxpayer money in witch hunts.  Heck, why don't they just draft up articles of impeachment right now, I am sure the oh so non-partisan press would eat that up.

[smilesammich 10,727]

30 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Just that little investigation the FBI was conducting on Hillary Clinton.  Have we forgotten that this meeting former AG Lynch had with Bill Clinton was just days before the DOJ was going to come out with their findings?

 

As to the keep trying comment, I think that is obvious.  It is apparent the Democrats with their friends in the press are going to spin any story negatively.  Frankly it is getting boring.  Investigate away, then we will start hearing how the Democrats are wasting all this taxpayer money in witch hunts.  Heck, why don't they just draft up articles of impeachment right now, I am sure the oh so non-partisan press would eat that up.

democrats and their friends in the press, lol. you're right about this getting boring. i am truly sorry that you can't see why an investigation is not only appropriate but imperative. what comes out will come out. of course, if it's negative its all the fault of dems and msm. how in the world will all this be spun if nothing is found? i assume it will be all "dems and msm witch hunt costs muricans =  $$$$" meanwhile....

Quote

According to the Benghazi Research Center, however, the investigation involved 10 congressional committees and the disclosure of at least 100,000 documents. It went on to report that the House Select Committee on Benghazi alone devoured over $6.8 million of taxpayers' money, or nearly $8,000 per day

https://www.bustle.com/articles/161251-how-much-has-been-spent-on-the-benghazi-investigation-the-hearings-have-cost-taxpayers-millions

[CaliCat 3,957]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

Just that little investigation the FBI was conducting on Hillary Clinton.  Have we forgotten that this meeting former AG Lynch had with Bill Clinton was just days before the DOJ was going to come out with their findings?

 

As to the keep trying comment, I think that is obvious.  It is apparent the Democrats with their friends in the press are going to spin any story negatively.  Frankly it is getting boring.  Investigate away, then we will start hearing how the Democrats are wasting all this taxpayer money in witch hunts.  Heck, why don't they just draft up articles of impeachment right now, I am sure the oh so non-partisan press would eat that up.

 

 

What is apparent is the crowd singing "lock her up" is so inebriated with Kool-Aid they can't see straight. I don't hear any of the MDRs asking the so-called president to lock up Sessions, the liar.

 

 

[jg121783 3,908]

4 hours ago, CaliCat said:

 

Hate, evil, hatred, and whining. These are all subjective words, and in an alternate facts world they might be able to justify burying your head in the sand.

 

The case with Sessions is that he seems to have committed perjury, which you will have to agree is not something that goes well with the his position as DA. You can love him all you want, and drool over the so-called president's plans, but in factual reality, as opposed to alternative factual reality, the deed still remained he may have perjured himself.

 

Just divest yourself from the cult of adoration for Tump and his cabinet members, you might be able to see through the smoke screen that much more clearly.

It's real simple. Sessions was asked if he talked to any Russians in connection with the election. He truthfully said no. There is no issue here. Lets stop wasting time and tax money on this issue and move on to something important. By the way I actually oppose Sessions on some issues such as the drug war so it's not like I worship him. But this Russian obsession by the left has gotten out of control.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

29 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

It's real simple. Sessions was asked if he talked to any Russians in connection with the election. He truthfully said no. There is no issue here. Lets stop wasting time and tax money on this issue and move on to something important. By the way I actually oppose Sessions on some issues such as the drug war so it's not like I worship him. But this Russian obsession by the left has gotten out of control.

and then there is this 

 

Photo contradicts Pelosi's statement about not meeting Kislyak

 

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/nancy-pelosi-sergey-kislyak-meeting-235653

 

 

 

 

 

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Friday that she's never met with the current Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak.

"Not with this Russian ambassador, no," Pelosi told POLITICO's Jake Sherman and Anna Palmer during a Playbook interview, when asked if she'd ever met with the Russian envoy.

But a file photo from Pelosi's 2010 meeting with Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev shows Kislyak at the table across from Pelosi — then House speaker — and Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.). Medvedev had been in the country for a meeting with President Barack Obama a day earlier and stopped in on Capitol Hill to meet with congressional leaders as well.

Asked to square Pelosi's comments with the photo of the meeting, aspokesman said that Pelosi had simply meant she never had a solo meeting with Kislyak.

"Of course, that's what she meant," said the spokesman, Drew Hammill. "She has never had a private one-on-one with him."

No one on either side of the aisle has suggested it's improper for lawmakers to meet with foreign diplomats. Rather, Democrats have slammed Sessions for failing to disclose those contacts, which came at a time Russia was increasingly believed by U.S. intelligence agencies to be meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

Pelosi's explanation is similar to one offered by Sen. Claire McCaskill Thursday, after she swiped at Attorney General Jeff Sessions for privately meeting with Kislyak in 2016 and failing to disclose it when asked about communications with Russians during his confirmation proceedings in January. Sessions has emphasized that meetings with ambassadors are common for lawmakers and that he met with Kislyak in his capacity as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[smilesammich 10,727]

20 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

and then there is this 

 

Photo contradicts Pelosi's statement about not meeting Kislyak

 

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/nancy-pelosi-sergey-kislyak-meeting-235653

 

 

 

 

 

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Friday that she's never met with the current Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak.

"Not with this Russian ambassador, no," Pelosi told POLITICO's Jake Sherman and Anna Palmer during a Playbook interview, when asked if she'd ever met with the Russian envoy.

But a file photo from Pelosi's 2010 meeting with Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev shows Kislyak at the table across from Pelosi — then House speaker — and Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.). Medvedev had been in the country for a meeting with President Barack Obama a day earlier and stopped in on Capitol Hill to meet with congressional leaders as well.

Asked to square Pelosi's comments with the photo of the meeting, aspokesman said that Pelosi had simply meant she never had a solo meeting with Kislyak.

"Of course, that's what she meant," said the spokesman, Drew Hammill. "She has never had a private one-on-one with him."

No one on either side of the aisle has suggested it's improper for lawmakers to meet with foreign diplomats. Rather, Democrats have slammed Sessions for failing to disclose those contacts, which came at a time Russia was increasingly believed by U.S. intelligence agencies to be meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

Pelosi's explanation is similar to one offered by Sen. Claire McCaskill Thursday, after she swiped at Attorney General Jeff Sessions for privately meeting with Kislyak in 2016 and failing to disclose it when asked about communications with Russians during his confirmation proceedings in January. Sessions has emphasized that meetings with ambassadors are common for lawmakers and that he met with Kislyak in his capacity as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

 

 

 

 

 

 

part in bold, and also...he didn't recuse himself to quiet democrats' "insane" allegations. you can't have someone leading an investigation, if they're being investigated.

 

Quote

So far, congressional Republicans have protected President Donald Trump from a host of otherwise troubling issues. No tax returns? No problem. Blatant family conflicts of interest? Nothing to see here. Cabinet members with “incomplete” disclosures? Only Labor nominee Andrew Puzder’s nomination was derailed, and that took everything from hiring an undocumented housekeeper to allegations of spousal abuse. (“Fake news,” in Puzder’s telling.)

The story of Attorney General Jeff Sessions is another matter. Rep. Darrell Issa—who as chair of the House Oversight Committee launched approximately 24,598 investigations of Obama administration malfeasance—called for Sessions to recuse himself from looking into charges of Russian meddling in American campaigns. The committee’s current chair, Jason Chaffetz, did the same. So did Rep. Raúl Labrador, one of the leaders of the House Freedom Caucus, the most militant of conservative voices. House Speaker Paul Ryan offered this assessment:

“If he himself is the subject of an investigation, of course he would. If he is not, I don’t see any purpose or reason for doing this.” (Of course, since Sessions is now the ultimate boss of the FBI, Ryan’s statement raises the interesting question of just when he might become the subject of an investigation. And it does not address what may be the key issue: Why didn’t Sessions amend his answer to Sen. Al Franken’s question about Trump campaign aides’ contacts with Russians? We are now being treated to an explanation that Sessions met with the Russian ambassador as a senator, not a campaign surrogate—a distinction that is almost … Clintonian.)

Trump said he did not see any need for Sessions to recuse himself and told reporters he had “total” confidence in his attorney general. And White House spokesman Sean Spicer said Sessions had been “100 percent straight” with the Senate Judiciary Committee, despite what looks like flatly misleading answers to Franken.

In the end, Sessions decided to recuse himself from any investigations into cases related to the 2016 campaign, though he claimed it was because his own department had looked into the matter. But let’s be blunt: It was the Republican chorus of calls for recusal that forced the issue. What made them so significant is that Washington is far more politically polarized than it was in Watergate days, when conservative and moderate Democrats and moderate and liberal Republicans actually walked among us. For these GOP office-holders to break ranks—knowing the potential cost of angering the Trumpist base of their party—suggests they sense real political danger in marching in complete lockstep with the White House. (Issa won his seat last November by just a 51 percent to 49 percent margin.) After all, Republicans can’t possibly know how deep the Trump-Russia rabbit hole goes, so it would be risky to stick out their necks for a president who—to put it charitably—has acted really strangely toward Moscow.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/sessions-recuses-himself-trump-russia-214857

[Jacque67 7,328]

Pathetic attempt at whataboutism from Trump!!! He's a dolt!!!

appart from the three attempts at spelling hereby correctly, what on earth is he tweeting about???

 

"I hereby demand..." If a joke , a mockery of his office. If not, authoritarianism.

pelosi has responded, that trump doesn't know the difference between official mtg photographed by press and closed secret meeting his AG lied about under oath.

pelosi and schumer should call his bluff!!!! 

[yuna628 9,547]

52 minutes ago, Jacque67 said:

Pathetic attempt at whataboutism from Trump!!! He's a dolt!!!

appart from the three attempts at spelling hereby correctly, what on earth is he tweeting about???

 

"I hereby demand..." If a joke , a mockery of his office. If not, authoritarianism.

pelosi has responded, that trump doesn't know the difference between official mtg photographed by press and closed secret meeting his AG lied about under oath.

pelosi and schumer should call his bluff!!!! 

He's working on his best Henry VIII impersonation for local Renaissance fairs. He's got to find employment somewhere once he's kickedout/removed/quits/orotherwiselosesnexttime 

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

7 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Isn't that part of the Senator's job to verify the answers given.  My opinion is that the reason Senator Franken didn't do this is because he understood the question and the answer.

It is the part of the oath taker to tell the truth and the whole truth. Folks rarely go to jail for talking to ambassadors, more so for perjury. 

[jg121783 3,908]

1 hour ago, ccneat said:

It is the part of the oath taker to tell the truth and the whole truth. Folks rarely go to jail for talking to ambassadors, more so for perjury. 

It would only be perjury if he had talked to the Russians in connection with the election as that is what he was being asked about. First the leftists want to impeach Trump without a valid reason then they want to push perjury charges against his cabinet picks without a valid reason. This is getting pretty pathetic. 

[CaliCat 3,957]

5 hours ago, jg121783 said:

It's real simple. Sessions was asked if he talked to any Russians in connection with the election. He truthfully said no. There is no issue here. Lets stop wasting time and tax money on this issue and move on to something important. By the way I actually oppose Sessions on some issues such as the drug war so it's not like I worship him. But this Russian obsession by the left has gotten out of control.

 

Apparently other cabinet members met with Russian representatives prior to the election. They are all coming out of the woods as the story unravels. Both the CIA and FBI alerted the Russians were involved in affecting the results of the elections.

 

Trump himself said many, many times that he thought the elections were rigged. Maybe he did so to create an alibi for himself. 

 

Too many convergences. They can't all be part of one bigly coincidence.