Attorney General Jeff Sessions alledgedly met with Russians during Trump Campaign

He is the second senior Trump appointee to have allegedly met with representatives of the Russian Government during Trump's election campaign, despite saying no such meetings occurred under oath at his confirmation hearing. One of those alleged meetings was with Sergey Kislyak, the Russian envoy who Michael Flynn also met with during the campaign, who was forced to resign after discussing Russian sanctions with Kislyak and then lying about the nature of those discussions to the Vice President and senior White House staff.

The claim has been made by officials from the United States Justice Department, the department Sessions leads, and it is being reported by both liberal and conservative media. Sessions has denied the allegations, and the White House has also decried them as false and the work of partisan democrats.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sessions-spoke-twice-with-russian-ambassador-during-trumps-presidential-campaign-justice-officials-say/2017/03/01/77205eda-feac-11e6-99b4-9e613afeb09f_story.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/02/sessions-russian-ambassador-reportedly-spoke-twice-during-presidential-campaign.html

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 1

yudothis

Excuse already there, he was doing it as official capacity, which the question wasn't asking about.

Fake News.

Reply 2

username612415

Original post by yudothis

Excuse already there, he was doing it as official capacity, which the question wasn't asking about.

Fake News.

That's very similar to the defense Michael Flynn was using, up until it was revealed that he had been discussing sanctions with the Russian envoy and forced to resign, the same Russian envoy involved in this scandal.

The question was broad, asking about his knowledge of communication with the Russian government, and the answer was clear- "I did not have communications with the Russians". There is absolutely nothing about either the question or the answer to suggest he could omit mentioning any "official" meetings from his testimony because they were a given.

I guess we'll have to wait for further information.

Reply 3

yudothis

Donald will bring the truth to light, we will hear him soon on this matter and he will clear it up.

In the meantime, do not listen to fake news. Fake news is totally fake.

Reply 4

username612415

Original post by yudothis

Donald will bring the truth to light, we will hear him soon on this matter and he will clear it up.

In the meantime, do not listen to fake news. Fake news is totally fake.

I'm confused about which part of this story is fake news though. Is it because the meetings never took place? Because it can't be that if Sessions has now confirmed they happened himself. Is it that he already disclosed that these meetings occurred or because the question was framed not to include these particular meetings? Because it can't be that either, because the question was broad and made no mention of any exemptions and Sessions had not disclosed that these meetings occurred yet either. Is it that these meetings happened in his official capacity a part of the Armed Forces Committee and was therefore such an obvious part of his role that it didn't even occur for him to mention them, never mind being newsworthy? Because it can't be that either, as no other member of that committee ever met with the ambassador and one serving member confirmed that was the role of the Foreign Relations Committee, not their own.

It's all very confusing. You're right, we should wait for Trump to clear everything up for us.

Reply 5

yudothis

Amen brother. He has all the best words. He will use the best words to tell the truth big time.

Reply 6

Snufkin

Universities Forum Helper

So he has committed perjury, but Trump supporters want to lock Hillary up instead? The Trump administration really does beggar belief. I should have bet on impeachment, it's coming, the alt-right tears will flow.

Reply 7

username612415

Original post by Snufkin

Hillary has fallen out of their goldfish memories, now they want Obama arrested for his role orchestrating the secret underground rebellion against ~~the Galactic Empire~~ Trump's administration through the use of ~~lightsabers~~ planted leakers and ~~X Wing Fighters~~ coordinated protests. Alleged collaborators with Russia, who American conservatives all hated right up until Trump started soapboxing for, are nowhere near as dangerous as that.

Reply 8

jape

Original post by Snufkin

1. He didn't commit perjury. He answered the question truthfully, because the context of the question was clearly getting at the Trump campaign. He met with the ambassador while performing his duties as a U.S. Senator.

2. Hillary Clinton committed actual crimes, and deserves to be prosecuted. That would be true even if literally everyone in the Trump administration was being bribed by the Kremlin to withdraw sanctions.

Reply 9

username612415

Update: Sessions has recused himself from, and will therefore not preside over, any probe or investigation related to Trump's 2016 campaign.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/top-gop-lawmaker-calls-on-sessions-to-recuse-himself-from-russia-investigation/2017/03/02/148c07ac-ff46-11e6-8ebe-6e0dbe4f2bca_story.html

Original post by jape

He met with the ambassador while performing his duties as a U.S. Senator.

He and his spokesperson claimed he attended the meetings in his capacity as a member of the Armed Services Committee, something no other member of the Committee have supported him on and the majority have confirmed that they have never met with foreign ambassadors in this capacity.

Reply 10

jape

He's met with 25 ambassadors during his time in Senate, and at least one person (Claire McCaskill, Democratic Senator for Minnesota) was wrong-or-lied in saying they never met with Kislyak.

In any case, he's recused himself from proceedings so if there needs to be an investigation then there'll be one and Sessions will be found innocent of any wrongdoing because there's no legal grounds for claims of perjury. As Andrew McCarthy pointed out in National Review, in a case where the question being answered under oath is poorly worded, insufficiently narrow in scope or could simply be misconstrued according to context, the law finds in favour of the accused.

Reply 11

username521617

The word allegedly seems to come up a lot with Trump and Russia...

Drain the swamp!

The crime wasn't meeting with the Russians, it was being part of Trump's cabinet (and lying to a senate committee, but that's the minor point)

It is fun watching the Democrats try to self destruct when the media isn't looking though, yesterday it was attacking widows of veterans and saying that <4000 people were shot last year in Chicago because there were only ~800 homicides, today it's tweeting about never having sat with the Russian ambassador while on the committee in question despite photographic evidence to the contrary.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 14

jape

Original post by Jammy Duel

Lying implies willful misdirection, which wasn't the case here. He answered the question poorly, but if the intent was to get at "have you met any Russians in the last two years in any capacity" then Sen. Franken asked the question poorly.

Reply 15

Jammy Duel

Original post by jape

Doesn't mean he shouldn't have said "only in an official capacity for [x, y, z]" instead of flat out denying any contact. He should've known that the desperate democrats would find out and get the Clinton New Network et al to latch onto it and report deceptively so as to imply it's back room dealing selling national secrets to the Kremlin.

Posted from TSR Mobile