Sessions met with Russian envoy 2X last year, encounters he later did not disclose!
- Thread starter jgarden
- Start date
1. If that's true, why does it seem that he's the only member of the Armed Services Committee to have had such a meeting?
2. His response to written questions doesn't bear that interpretation out:
| LEAHY: Several of the President-elect’s nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. 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: No. |
The question was not "you, as a senator" or "you, as a Trump campaign official". It was "you", Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III. There are innocent reasons to have such meetings. There are no innocent reasons to lie about them to Congress.
3. One of the times he met Kislyak was at the RNC convention, at which it is impossible that he would have been serving his duties as a senator because it is a political event that cannot be mingled with official duties. He could only have been serving as a private citizen, or a partisan operative.
Perjury is pretty hard to prove. But I find it very hard to see where he was anything but dishonest with Congress. And the larger question that matters, in the long run, far more is why did so many Trump officials meet with this Russian agent and then subsequently lie about it? That's what should keep any American patriot who doesn't wish to see their country run from the Kremlin awake at night. It seems to me like the most alarming answer is also the simplest and most obvious.
Too bad. Eventually, you're going to have to get over it.
There's nothing wrong with that. There's nothing wrong with meeting with the guy. What's wrong is lying to Congress about it.
Why don't we investigate who Hitlery met with and communicated with during her weak campaign, and investigate all of her staffers for the same thing -
WizardofOz
New member
That's exactly it. He had a chance to come clean and decided to be evasive. So is he hiding something, is he less than honest by nature, is he too dim to understand the implication of being less than transparent? No matter his excuse it casts doubt on someone who America needs to trust.
It's time to move on and replace him with someone of less questionable character.
You know what I want to see? You know those sappy police dramas? You know how they lock up suspects in separate rooms and offer the first to rat a deal? Here are your perps: Session, Flynn, Kutchner, Carter. Whoever talks first gets a deal, the rest get a treason charge.
I can see making that mistake. And she did clear it up. It does seem like a more normal sort of meeting, to me.
I partially agree. There is a difference between the two situations but that guy's response was pretty poor. I heard a similar discussion this morning with Senator Coons and he gave a better answer.
Even if you charitably accept that explanation, that does not explain, nor can similar reasoning account for, the written answer to Senator Leahy.
It's fascinating to see so many conservatives so uninterested in Russian meddling in our elections.
And this: https://thinkprogress.org/session-russian-ambassador-meeting-september-86388c6a56c5#.xkf4gsmob
I agree. But I also don't want to view this in isolation. There are too many Trump officials implicated. I want to know what they were doing with the Russians as a movement. If they were conspiring with the Russians to tamper with the election, they all have to go, from the top down.
This?: https://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/t...eagan-opinions-columnists-peter-robinson.html
Hadn't heard about it before. It was well before my time, mostly. It is pretty shocking though.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
There is your/the equally extreme right's blinder.
Your own extremism and its' blindness.
Regardless of which "side" the extremist believes he or she belongs to, in reality the extremist within either is ever blinded by his "one size fits all" view of anyone who does not hold his extreme.
And as with the words of some other extremists on here; your own words have continually vetted you before all the rest and proven you just one more extremist.
Out of long since having learned that the truth of a matter is to be found in looking at things from a middle, somewhere - some on here are simply after an objectivity outside of the fool extremist finger pointing of "look - a liberal! Look - a conservative!" and so on.
Even in "faith" such is the case.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
By who's definition?
Depends on whether the individual calling a thing black, or white is actually an individual often known by all for his or her objectivity and willingness to attempt to look at a thing from all sides before allowing him or herself his or her conclusion that a thing is black, or white.
Even in Scripture, such is the case...
1 Corinthians 6:1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? 6:2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 6:3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? 6:4 If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. 6:5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? 6:6 But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.
That right there often ends up having to rule out most people, often.
All the bickering in this and other forums is the result of that kind of a violation and the decisiveness and bigotry that arises from it in the supposed name of intolerance for what the extremist views as their supposed God given "black" against another's supposed inspired by the Devil "white" and vice-versa.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
The 64K question: Was there a cover-up?
This is the cover-up question. The White House counsel, Don McGahan, sent a memo this week to staff members instructing them “to preserve materials that could be connected to Russian interference in the 2016 election and other related investigations,” the A.P. reported. Last month, the Senate Intelligence Committee issued its own “preservation letter” to the White House, advising it not to destroy any records that might be relevant. History suggests that the temptation to hide or destroy evidence is powerful, and the consequences, known as “process crimes,” can proliferate quickly. In the Watergate scandal, more than thirty people eventually pleaded guilty or were convicted of crimes including perjury, burglary, wiretapping, and obstruction of justice. Most of those offenses were not directly related to coördinating the burglary of the Democratic National Committee, in June, 1972; they were, as the cliché holds, committed during the cover-up.