• Jeff Session to hold press conference
    50 replies, posted
I'm glad he's decided to recuse himself. I don't think Sessions is guilty of perjury, but nonetheless it's the right decision to avoid even the appearance of a conflict with an ongoing investigation, even if it hasn't occurred yet.
[QUOTE=Chonch;51902784]I'm glad he's decided to recuse himself. I don't think Sessions is guilty of perjury, but nonetheless it's the right decision to avoid even the appearance of a conflict with an ongoing investigation.[/QUOTE] "did you have contact with russians about the campaign?" "not technically..." I dont see why with the outright rubberstamping trumps admin got that he saw fit to lie about this
Anyone got a summary? They've moved on to "Space Talk"
[QUOTE=Sableye;51902800]"did you have contact with russians about the campaign?" "not technically..." I dont see why with the outright rubberstamping trumps admin got that he saw fit to lie about this[/QUOTE] I'm saying it isn't a lie; that would be perjury. Your quotes are inaccurate. I just re-listened to the part of Sessions' testimony of concern, and it sounds a lot more like an error of omission to me. [QUOTE]Franken: ...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.[/QUOTE] Maybe I'm reading into it too much, but from what I can tell, Sessions was speaking specifically about his activities as a "surrogate" (a nebulous, subjective term IMO) for the campaign, not in his official capacity as a Senator. Now I certainly think Sessions could have been more clear about what he meant, but when it comes to the charge of perjury, the burden was on the Senate to ask clearer followup questions.
The thing that makes him legally culpable for perjury isn't the context of the question, but the wording of his answer. He said, and I quote, "I am not aware of those activities. I have been called a surrogate in that campaign at a time or two, and [B]I did not have communications with the Russians.[/B] So I can't comment on that." Not "I did not have any communications with the Russians in my capacity as a surrogate." Legally speaking, that's a lie. At best, it's deliberately misleading. Seems pretty cut and dry to me, especially since the question was not even asking him whether he himself was involved in these communications - Franken asked him what he would do if evidence that there had been communications between campaign surrogates and the Russians came to light. He got defensive. Personally, I'm not convinced that Sessions is one of the conspirators, but I could be wrong. Trump seems to surround himself with people who have undisclosed conversations with Russian intelligence assets. Just my two cents.
[QUOTE=archangel125;51902871]The thing that makes him legally culpable for perjury isn't the context of the question, but the wording of his answer. He said, and I quote, "I am not aware of those activities. I have been called a surrogate in that campaign at a time or two, and [B]I did not have any communications with the Russians.[/B] So I can't comment on that." Not "I did not have any communications with the Russians in my capacity as a surrogate." Legally speaking, that's a lie. At best, it's deliberately misleading. Seems pretty cut and dry to me, especially since the question was not even asking him whether he himself was involved in these communications - Franken asked him what he would do if evidence that there had been communications between campaign surrogates and the Russians came to light. He got defensive.[/QUOTE] Defending yourself from a perceived accusation is suspect, yes, but nowhere close to evidence of guilt without further questioning. That said, I agree that the statement was misleading and in light of recent information, somewhat inaccurate. However, the witness’s only obligation in a perjury case is to refrain from willfully deceiving the interviewer with false answers. The burden is wholly on the questioner to clear the air by asking exacting follow-up questions. I just don't see any evidence of intent here. [editline]2nd March 2017[/editline] Off-topic, Perry and Carson got sworn in. Woohoo.
[QUOTE=Chonch;51902922]Defending yourself from a perceived accusation is suspect, yes, but nowhere close to evidence of guilt without further questioning. That said, I agree that the statement was misleading and in light of recent information, somewhat inaccurate. However, the witness’s only obligation in a perjury case is to refrain from willfully deceiving the interviewer with false answers. The burden is wholly on the questioner to clear the air by asking exacting follow-up questions. I just don't see any evidence of intent here.[/QUOTE] You've a point, by itself it isn't enough for a conviction. It's difficult to read into such things without greater context - which will be whatever findings a proper, nonpartisan investigation into this administration's connections turns up. Chances one will happen now are quite high, and one way or another, hopefully we can put the matter to rest. Provided it's conducted impartially and competently.
[QUOTE=Chonch;51902922]Off-topic, Perry and Carson got sworn in. Woohoo.[/QUOTE] incompetent idiots got sworn in wooo?
Easy D is weighing in on this via the most official means he knows [media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/837488402438176769[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/837489578193846278[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/837491607171629057[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/837492425283219458[/media] Gotta shift the focus over to those crazy Dems somehow.
Hahah. I love it when Trump tweets. Every time he opens his pie-hole, his support among the movers and shakers in the country wanes just a little more. Keep it up, Donny boy. Keep it up.
"He could have stated his response more accurately" which is to say, he could have answered accurately at all
[QUOTE=Chonch;51902922] Off-topic, Perry and Carson got sworn in. Woohoo.[/QUOTE] Why is that woohoo.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51903898]Why is that woohoo.[/QUOTE] I believe it's sarcasm.
[QUOTE=Xyrofen;51904244]I believe it's sarcasm.[/QUOTE] lmao It's Chonch, as if
[QUOTE=Paramud;51903396]Easy D is weighing in on this via the most official means he knows [media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/837488402438176769[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/837489578193846278[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/837491607171629057[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/837492425283219458[/media] Gotta shift the focus over to those crazy Dems somehow.[/QUOTE] Donald Trump, not even six months ago: [quote]“I love WikiLeaks. It’s amazing how nothing is secret today when you talk about the Internet.”[/quote] :thinking:
[media]https://twitter.com/KarlFrisch/status/837498745499619328[/media]
[QUOTE=Paramud;51903396]Easy D is weighing in on this via the most official means he knows [media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/837488402438176769[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/837489578193846278[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/837491607171629057[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/837492425283219458[/media] Gotta shift the focus over to those crazy Dems somehow.[/QUOTE] Does not Trump realize that there is a character limit for tweets for a reason?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51904597]Does Trump realize[/QUOTE] nnnnope
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51904597]Does not Trump realize that there is a character limit for tweets for a reason?[/QUOTE] in all fairness the advent of using several tweets to communicate something is nothing new
[QUOTE=cheetahben;51904605]in all fairness the advent of using several tweets to communicate something is nothing new[/QUOTE] Doesn't make it any less stupid.
[QUOTE=Paramud;51903396]Easy D is weighing in on this via the most official means he knows [media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/837488402438176769[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/837489578193846278[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/837491607171629057[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/837492425283219458[/media] Gotta shift the focus over to those crazy Dems somehow.[/QUOTE] I like how the timestamps imply he spent about 20 minutes typing out that message.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.