WWTBAM Bored

Let the investigations begin. (*crickets*)

During his confirmation hearings, Jeff Sessions was asked at least twice whether he, personally, had had any contact with anyone representing the Russian government, either before or after the election. One question was oral, one was in writing. In both cases, he unambiguously answered, "No."

It turns out he had met with the Russian Ambassador to the United States. That's pretty much the paradigm example of someone representing the Russian government. I'm waiting for the Justice Department to recommend perjury charges. I suspect it will be a very long wait. Cabinet officers are subject to impeachment and lying during your confirmation hearings seems to me to qualify as a High Crime or Misdemeanor, but I won't hold my breath waiting for the House to draft Articles. --Bob

This was the written question. It was specific relative to the topic of any meeting.

Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?

Sessions has addressed this as his meeting was regarding a different topic.

BackInTex wrote:This was the written question. It was specific relative to the topic of any meeting.

Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?

Sessions has addressed this as his meeting was regarding a different topic.

That doesn't address his flat-out lie in response to Senator Franken's question.

And if you believe his claim that the meeting wasn't about the election, I'd like to sell you a bridge. --Bob

Nearly twenty years ago, Sessions demanded that President Clinton be impeached for lying about a BJ. But now that Sessions is the one who committed perjury, and about colluding with a foreign power? Eh, IOKIYAR.

Here's a concept: Since so many members of the Drumpf Crime Family are friendly with Russia, how about an independent investigation so that we can find out which members of this administration have ties to America?

Pastor Fireball wrote:Nearly twenty years ago, Sessions demanded that President Clinton be impeached for lying about a BJ. But now that Sessions is the one who committed perjury, and about colluding with a foreign power? Eh, IOKIYAR.

Here's a concept: Since so many members of the Drumpf Crime Family are friendly with Russia, how about an independent investigation so that we can find out which members of this administration have ties to America?

Now you're lying.

Your answer doesn't confirm my mindset, ergo, you must be lying.
One ponders how so much keyboard warrioring can go one with so many knickers so viciously twisted. Must be terribly uncomfortable.

tlynn78 wrote:Your answer doesn't confirm my mindset, ergo, you must be lying.

He said he had never met with any representative of the Russian government when in fact he had met with the Russian Ambassador to the United States. There's no way to spin this. He lied. During his confirmation hearing. As the nation's chief law enforcement officer.

Either that's important to you or it's not. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

tlynn78 wrote:Your answer doesn't confirm my mindset, ergo, you must be lying.

He said he had never met with any representative of the Russian government when in fact he had met with the Russian Ambassador to the United States. There's no way to spin this. He lied. During his confirmation hearing. As the nation's chief law enforcement officer.

Either that's important to you or it's not. --Bob

It's okay of you're a Republican.

tlynn78 wrote:Your answer doesn't confirm my mindset, ergo, you must be lying.
One ponders how so much keyboard warrioring can go one with so many knickers so viciously twisted. Must be terribly uncomfortable.

Actually, now that I think about it this answer is particularly disappointing coming from you. You're an elected official and a participant in the court system. That's not the place to make excuses for a law enforcement officer who has demonstrably lied under oath, or to mock those who are calling him out on it. If it's political cover you're concerned about, you already have it from people such as Jason Chaffetz and Kevin McCarthy. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

tlynn78 wrote:Your answer doesn't confirm my mindset, ergo, you must be lying.
One ponders how so much keyboard warrioring can go one with so many knickers so viciously twisted. Must be terribly uncomfortable.

Actually, now that I think about it this answer is particularly disappointing coming from you. You're an elected official and a participant in the court system. That's not the place to make excuses for a law enforcement officer who has demonstrably lied under oath, or to mock those who are calling him out on it. If it's political cover you're concerned about, you already have it from people such as Jason Chaffetz and Kevin McCarthy. --Bob

Chaffetz now says Sessions must recuse himself from any Russia investigation.

Bob Juch wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

tlynn78 wrote:Your answer doesn't confirm my mindset, ergo, you must be lying.
One ponders how so much keyboard warrioring can go one with so many knickers so viciously twisted. Must be terribly uncomfortable.

Actually, now that I think about it this answer is particularly disappointing coming from you. You're an elected official and a participant in the court system. That's not the place to make excuses for a law enforcement officer who has demonstrably lied under oath, or to mock those who are calling him out on it. If it's political cover you're concerned about, you already have it from people such as Jason Chaffetz and Kevin McCarthy. --Bob

Chaffetz now says Sessions must recuse himself from any Russia investigation.

Sessions has already said as much, himself. But of course, he was probably lying, because, you know, Trump.

Bob, as the vast majority of my constituents tend to agree with my own leanings, and additionally, are capable of understanding how most functional adults manage to go on with their lives in the face of disappointment, I think I can live with yours.

Looks like Trump is getting ready to throw Sessions under the bus:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /98632654/

silverscreenselect wrote:Looks like Trump is getting ready to throw Sessions under the bus:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /98632654/

And we'll get Trey Gowdy. Better.

silverscreenselect wrote:Looks like Trump is getting ready to throw Sessions under the bus:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /98632654/

Not hardly. From that same article:

Speaking to reporters during a tour of the USS Gerald Ford, Trump said he still had "total" confidence in Sessions despite a new controversy over his attorney general's testimony that he had no contact with the Russian government during the campaign. Asked whether he believed Sessions testified truthfully, Trump said, "I think he probably did."

Trump also said he didn't think Sessions should recuse himself from the growing investigation into contacts between members of his staff and the Russian government during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Sessions's excuse for lying to Congress under oath at his confirmation hearing concerning his meetings with the Russian Ambassador was that he forgot about the meeting and anyway they never talked about the campaign.

That was a lie as well. The Ambassador told his government (in conversations we intercepted) that he and Sessions had talked about the campaign.

That's the Attorney General of the United States. Who lied under oath. At his confirmation hearing. Then he lied again to cover up his earlier lie. He needs to go. Now.

Let the Congressional investigations begin. (*crickets*) --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:Sessions's excuse for lying to Congress under oath at his confirmation hearing concerning his meetings with the Russian Ambassador was that he forgot about the meeting and anyway they never talked about the campaign.

That was a lie as well. The Ambassador told his government (in conversations we intercepted) that he and Sessions had talked about the campaign.

That's the Attorney General of the United States. Who lied under oath. At his confirmation hearing. Then he lied again to cover up his earlier lie. He needs to go. Now.

Let the Congressional investigations begin. (*crickets*)

This proves nothing, unless they intercepted the actual conversation, too. Perhaps I'm mistaken. Is hearsay now admissible as evidence?

Estonut wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Sessions's excuse for lying to Congress under oath at his confirmation hearing concerning his meetings with the Russian Ambassador was that he forgot about the meeting and anyway they never talked about the campaign.

That was a lie as well. The Ambassador told his government (in conversations we intercepted) that he and Sessions had talked about the campaign.

That's the Attorney General of the United States. Who lied under oath. At his confirmation hearing. Then he lied again to cover up his earlier lie. He needs to go. Now.

Let the Congressional investigations begin. (*crickets*)

This proves nothing, unless they intercepted the actual conversation, too. Perhaps I'm mistaken. Is hearsay now admissible as evidence?

That's not hearsay, look it up.

Estonut wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Sessions's excuse for lying to Congress under oath at his confirmation hearing concerning his meetings with the Russian Ambassador was that he forgot about the meeting and anyway they never talked about the campaign.

That was a lie as well. The Ambassador told his government (in conversations we intercepted) that he and Sessions had talked about the campaign.

That's the Attorney General of the United States. Who lied under oath. At his confirmation hearing. Then he lied again to cover up his earlier lie. He needs to go. Now.

Let the Congressional investigations begin. (*crickets*)

This proves nothing, unless they intercepted the actual conversation, too. Perhaps I'm mistaken. Is hearsay now admissible as evidence?

So you're thinking that the Russian Ambassador lied to his own government? Gotta credit you with one hell of an imagination. Or maybe that's just your sense of humor and it got past me. --Bob

Bob Juch wrote:

Estonut wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Sessions's excuse for lying to Congress under oath at his confirmation hearing concerning his meetings with the Russian Ambassador was that he forgot about the meeting and anyway they never talked about the campaign.

That was a lie as well. The Ambassador told his government (in conversations we intercepted) that he and Sessions had talked about the campaign.

That's the Attorney General of the United States. Who lied under oath. At his confirmation hearing. Then he lied again to cover up his earlier lie. He needs to go. Now.

Let the Congressional investigations begin. (*crickets*)

This proves nothing, unless they intercepted the actual conversation, too. Perhaps I'm mistaken. Is hearsay now admissible as evidence?

That's not hearsay, look it up.

You look it up. I already did.

Bob78164 wrote:

Estonut wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Sessions's excuse for lying to Congress under oath at his confirmation hearing concerning his meetings with the Russian Ambassador was that he forgot about the meeting and anyway they never talked about the campaign.

That was a lie as well. The Ambassador told his government (in conversations we intercepted) that he and Sessions had talked about the campaign.

That's the Attorney General of the United States. Who lied under oath. At his confirmation hearing. Then he lied again to cover up his earlier lie. He needs to go. Now.

Let the Congressional investigations begin. (*crickets*)

This proves nothing, unless they intercepted the actual conversation, too. Perhaps I'm mistaken. Is hearsay now admissible as evidence?

So you're thinking that the Russian Ambassador lied to his own government? Gotta credit you with one hell of an imagination. Or maybe that's just your sense of humor and it got past me. --Bob

Actually, this is akin to to the business record exception to the hearsay rule. It's taken from a report he filed with the Russian government.

Wow. Trump really wants Sessions to be gone.

I am 99% certain HE leaked this.

The coincidence of this leak happening two days after the NYT interview where Trump threw Sessions under the bus was just too great.

Couple these events with Trump's tweet this morning where he essentially confirmed the leak was true, and there you go...

Estonut wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Sessions's excuse for lying to Congress under oath at his confirmation hearing concerning his meetings with the Russian Ambassador was that he forgot about the meeting and anyway they never talked about the campaign.

That was a lie as well. The Ambassador told his government (in conversations we intercepted) that he and Sessions had talked about the campaign.

That's the Attorney General of the United States. Who lied under oath. At his confirmation hearing. Then he lied again to cover up his earlier lie. He needs to go. Now.

Let the Congressional investigations begin. (*crickets*)

This proves nothing, unless they intercepted the actual conversation, too. Perhaps I'm mistaken. Is hearsay now admissible as evidence?

With his tweet this morning, President Trump pretty much confirmed this story to be accurate.

Jeemie wrote: With his tweet this morning, President Trump pretty much confirmed this story to be accurate.

That's a pattern with Trump. Big story comes out. Trump apologists fall all over themselves yelling Fake News. Two days later, Trump confirms it's true. Trump apologists fall all over themselves saying it's no big deal.

In this case it is a big deal.

With all the noise the Trumpsters make about Fake News, the threat of breaking stories has over and over again forced Trump people into making admissions and trying for damage control. The press is doing its job, whether Flock and Hannity like it or not.