Jeff sessions didnt disclose russian meetings

[hollodero]

(03-02-2017, 08:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course it is unless you are closed-minded and consider the question asked:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/jeff-sessions-statements-congress-russia-contacts-163633749.html


The questioning was about alleged tampering with the election and Sessions answer was pertaining to the alleged election fraud. 

Wow, a mind has to be really open to see things that way.

When someone says I didn't communicate with the Russians - and then it turns out he did - and somehow an open mind should assume he meant "not as member of the campaign" or "not in the context of election fraud" when he clearly did not add anything of that kind to his statement - that is rich.

I always try to keep it fair as long as I can. But that goes a bit too far. The question doesn't even matter, he could have been asked if he found Sarah Silverman attractive or what's his opinion on onion soup. As soon as he said "I did not have communications with the Russians" it can only mean he didn't have communications with the Russians, or else it's not a true statement by any stretch.

[NATI BENGALS]

(03-02-2017, 08:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course it is unless you are closed-minded and consider the question asked:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/jeff-sessions-statements-congress-russia-contacts-163633749.html


The questioning was about alleged tampering with the election and Sessions answer was pertaining to the alleged election fraud. 

I understand what the question was. Do you understand he clearly called himself a surrogate and then said he did not have communications with the Russians?

Lets make this really easy. Was Jeff Sessions involved with the campaign? Did Jeff Sessions talk to a Russian?

Or if you are Jeff Sessions and you admit you messed up.

“In retrospect, I should've slowed down and said I did meet with one Russian official a couple times — that would be the ambassador.”

[NATI BENGALS]

(03-02-2017, 08:10 PM)hollodero Wrote: Wow, a mind has to be really open to see things that way.

When someone says I didn't communicate with the Russians - and then it turns out he did - and somehow an open mind should assume he meant "not as member of the campaign" or "not in the context of election fraud" when he clearly did not add anything of that kind to his statement - that is rich.

I always try to keep it fair as long as I can. But that goes a bit too far. The question doesn't even matter, he could have been asked if he found Sarah Silverman attractive or what's his opinion on onion soup. As soon as he said "I did not have communications with the Russians" it can only mean he didn't have communications with the Russians, or else it's not a true statement by any stretch.

But these are Trumpets. It isn't what their dear leaders say, what they do, or even what they mean, you just have to know what they believe deep down in their hearts. 

[*bfine32*]

(03-02-2017, 08:10 PM)hollodero Wrote: Wow, a mind has to be really open to see things that way.

When someone says I didn't communicate with the Russians - and then it turns out he did - and somehow an open mind should assume he meant "not as member of the campaign" or "not in the context of election fraud" when he clearly did not add anything of that kind to his statement - that is rich.

I always try to keep it fair as long as I can. But that goes a bit too far. The question doesn't even matter, he could have been asked if he found Sarah Silverman attractive or what's his opinion on onion soup. As soon as he said "I did not have communications with the Russians" it can only mean he didn't have communications with the Russians, or else it's not a true statement by any stretch.

"Rich" as it may be it has merit. I don't know how the open-minded should view it as mine is closed. But IMO he was being questioned about election fraud and was asked if anyone had contact with the Russians, so he most likely posed his answer accordingly. It might not have occurred to him that he spoke with Russia about something totally off topic while serving in a totally separate capacity.

But a "gotcha" has been successful as he has recused himself, because..........

[hollodero]

(03-02-2017, 08:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: "Rich" as it may be it has merit. I don't know how the open-minded should view it as mine is closed. But IMO he was being questioned about election fraud and was asked if anyone had contact with the Russians, so he most likely posed his answer accordingly. It might not have occurred to him that he spoke with Russia about something totally off topic while serving in a totally separate capacity.

But a "gotcha" has been successful as he has recused himself, because..........

Hm.

SEN. AL FRANKEN: "If there was any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this (2016) campaign, what would you do?"

SESSIONS: "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 did not have communications with the Russians."

...I don't know. But sure, it might "not have occurred to him". That is the most Sessions-friendly assumption, anyhow. He couldn't remember, now it suddenly is coming back. But OK.

I somehow get the idea that by being open-minded you mean, always apply the worst possible interpretation when a Democrat says something, and always apply the best possible interpretation when a Republican says something. I feel you're not too consistent. But that's just my interpretation.

[*bfine32*]

(03-02-2017, 08:39 PM)hollodero Wrote: Hm.

SEN. AL FRANKEN: "If there was any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this (2016) campaign, what would you do?"

SESSIONS: "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 did not have communications with the Russians."

...I don't know. But sure, it might "not have occurred to him". That is the most Sessions-friendly assumption, anyhow. He couldn't remember, now it suddenly is coming back. But OK.

I somehow get the idea that by being open-minded you mean, always apply the worst possible interpretation when a Democrat says something, and always apply the best possible interpretation when a Republican says something. I feel you're not too consistent. But that's just my interpretation.

Your interpretation aside. Being open-minded to me means innocent before guilty and not always assuming the worst.

It comes down to 2 choices here:

1) You don't believe Sessions deliberately deceived Congress

2) You  do believe Sessions deliberately deceived Congress

Only the individual truly knows what he or she believes. That person then has to look in the mirror and ask themselves am I being true to my beliefs and their motivation for doing so.

My belief is that he did not deliberately deceive congress. What is yours? 

[Bengalzona]

(03-02-2017, 08:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This I do not agree with. If you feel you've done something wrong then step down; if you have not then tell them to go kick rocks. 

It reminds me o the time when folks were demanding the 2 SCOTUS members that officiated gay wedding recuse themselves from ruling of the SSM issue.

It is the logical thing for him to do at this point.

A team investigating something cannot afford even a hint that someone on the team might have a bias or an association with the party being investigated, or else the matter never gets put to rest. Jeff Sessions knows this.

I doubt if we will never really know what Jeff Sessions discussed with the Russian ambassador.

As for people who are calling for him to step down as Attorney General, I don't see that happening. You can't really prove that he intentionally lied, as opposed to actually forgetting. Having been a a witness in court many times, I can attest that you do forget things sometimes when you are put on the spot. And sometimes you get called out for it. When that happens, you just tell the truth and admit you forgot. I imagine it is the same situation when you have to appear before a Congressional hearing. Those things are intense and sometimes excruciatingly long. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, as I believe many Congress people will as well.

[hollodero]

(03-02-2017, 11:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Your interpretation aside. Being open-minded to me means innocent before guilty and not always assuming the worst.

Fair enough.
There might come a time when a democrat says something where I might remind you of these exact words.

(03-02-2017, 11:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It comes down to 2 choices here:

1) You don't believe Sessions deliberately deceived Congress

2) You  do believe Sessions deliberately deceived Congress

Only the individual truly knows what he or she believes. That person then has to look in the mirror and ask themselves am I being true to my beliefs and their motivation for doing so.

My belief is that he did not deliberately deceive congress. What is yours? 

Right - I don't know. Not really knowing, I do not share your belief, and that has nothing to do with the political color. The reason for my belief is that the question couldn't have come as a surprise. That Russian contacts will come up in the hearing was quite clear and obvious.
So he didn't just forget in this very moment confronted with an unexpected question; he must have forgotten through the whole preparation for the hearing, and I have a hard time believing that.
Plus, he actually rushed to say he didn't have any contact - when he wasn't even asked directly if he had. As if it was a prepared statement in the first place. That last point is not as strong as the first one, but in the sum of it all... I think he deliberately misled congress. Circumstances point to that. But I can't know for sure, that much is admitted. Dubio pro reo in court, but not on the political stage.

- Best possible scenario for him, he made a blunder. Which doesn't shed the best of lights on him too.

[Griever]

(03-02-2017, 08:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: "Rich" as it may be it has merit. I don't know how the open-minded should view it as mine is closed. But IMO he was being questioned about election fraud and was asked if anyone had contact with the Russians, so he most likely posed his answer accordingly. It might not have occurred to him that he spoke with Russia about something totally off topic while serving in a totally separate capacity.

But a "gotcha" has been successful as he has recused himself, because..........

thank you for admitting what the rest of us already knew about you

[BmorePat87]

When Sessions first met with the Russian ambassador at a Heritage Foundation event during the RNC, he used his own reelection account to pay for the trip, not the expense account for the Armed Services committee, and attendees said he spoke about Trump and his policies at the event.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/jeff-sessions-used-political-funds-for-republican-convention-expenses-1488509301

[*bfine32*]

(03-03-2017, 09:51 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: When Sessions first met with the Russian ambassador at a Heritage Foundation event during the RNC, he used his own reelection account to pay for the trip, not the expense account for the Armed Services committee, and attendees said he spoke about Trump and his policies at the event.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/jeff-sessions-used-political-funds-for-republican-convention-expenses-1488509301

He used his own reelection funds you say?

[Belsnickel]

(03-03-2017, 10:36 AM)bfine32 Wrote: He used his own reelection funds you say?

It looks as though he did. Which would indicate he did not meet with them in the course of his role as a member of the ASC, as he stated. So either he mishandled political funds, or he lied about the reason he met with the ambassador.

[BmorePat87]

(03-03-2017, 10:57 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So either he mishandled political funds, or he lied about the reason he met with the ambassador.

Or as he said in his press conference yesterday, he just doesn't remember meeting him then, he met a lot of people...

And he doesn't really remember what they talked about in his office.

[Belsnickel]

(03-03-2017, 11:02 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Or as he said in his press conference yesterday, he just doesn't remember meeting him then, he met a lot of people...

And he doesn't really remember what they talked about in his office.

Ah, hadn't heard that was his excuse. Honestly, I wouldn't doubt that given campaigns being the environment they are.

[Griever]

(03-03-2017, 11:13 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Ah, hadn't heard that was his excuse. Honestly, I wouldn't doubt that given campaigns being the environment they are.

maybe aaron hernandez should use that

"i dont remember killing these two guys, i killed a lot of people, y aknow"

[Belsnickel]

(03-03-2017, 11:33 AM)Griever Wrote: maybe aaron hernandez should use that

"i dont remember killing these two guys, i killed a lot of people, y aknow"

I don't think it excuses him. When you're playing the game at that level you need to be more aware of what is going on. If he truly lost track of that meeting, then that is concerning as well.

[Griever]

(03-03-2017, 11:37 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't think it excuses him. When you're playing the game at that level you need to be more aware of what is going on. If he truly lost track of that meeting, then that is concerning as well.

oh absolutely

what else has he "forgotten"

[xxlt]

(03-03-2017, 10:57 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: It looks as though he did. Which would indicate he did not meet with them in the course of his role as a member of the ASC, as he stated. So either he mishandled political funds, or he lied about the reason he met with the ambassador.

What's one more crime or lie in the big scheme of things?

[xxlt]

(03-03-2017, 12:14 PM)Griever Wrote: oh absolutely

what else has he "forgotten"

Hey, St. Ronald and Ollie North rode that train to freedom.

[Griever]

yeah republican jesus sure loved giving amnesty to illegal aliens