Jeff sessions didnt disclose russian meetings

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

If he deliberately lied that is, of course, a problem.  Can someone explain to me why his meeting with the Russian ambassador after the election is meaningful or a cause for concern?

[Belsnickel]

(03-03-2017, 12:51 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If he deliberately lied that is, of course, a problem.  Can someone explain to me why his meeting with the Russian ambassador after the election is meaningful or a cause for concern?

There is one POTUS at a time. Discussing policy with foreign officials can undermine the authority of the current administration and since the POTUSE is not sworn in yet, could be a violation of the Logan Act depending on the topics involved.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-03-2017, 12:54 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: There is one POTUS at a time. Discussing policy with foreign officials can undermine the authority of the current administration and since the POTUSE is not sworn in yet, could be a violation of the Logan Act depending on the topics involved.

Them discussing policy is pure conjecture.  I imagine he spoke with quite a few foreign diplomats during his tenure.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-03-2017, 12:51 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If he deliberately lied that is, of course, a problem.  Can someone explain to me why his meeting with the Russian ambassador after the election is meaningful or a cause for concern?

"Look, don't worry about any sanctions by Obama about "alleged" Russian interference with the election.  You helped us win so we'll over turn those in due time so it doesn't look blatantly obvious we colluded.  Maybe overturn them along with Obamacare, EPA regulations, and Dodd-Frank and no one will notice.  Plus, we'll have Tillerson throw you a big ol' bone when it comes to Russian oil.  Not to worry. Plus we'll undermine the legitimacy of our own intelligence sources and the media so if they do notice we'll just dismiss them as fake news."

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-03-2017, 01:16 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: "Look, don't worry about any sanctions by Obama about "alleged" Russian interference with the election.  You helped us win so we'll over turn those in due time so it doesn't look blatantly obvious we colluded.  Maybe overturn them along with Obamacare, EPA regulations, and Dodd-Frank and no one will notice.  Plus, we'll have Tillerson throw you a big ol' bone when it comes to Russian oil.  Not to worry. Plus we'll undermine the legitimacy of our own intelligence sources and the media so if they do notice we'll just dismiss them as fake news."

Of course those could all be discussed well after Trump is sworn in.  There's literally no reason, if that's what you want to discuss with them, you can't have that discussion after 01/20/17.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-03-2017, 01:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Of course those could all be discussed well after Trump is sworn in.  There's literally no reason, if that's what you want to discuss with them, you can't have that discussion after 01/20/17.

Unless you want to reassure them and you're not worried about getting caught.

What was Flynn discussing which couldn't wait until after 01/20/17?

[Belsnickel]

(03-03-2017, 12:59 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Them discussing policy is pure conjecture.  I imagine he spoke with quite a few foreign diplomats during his tenure.

It is conjecture, I don't disagree, but people don't know what they discussed and given the issues with Russia during the past year and then the "forgetfulness" of certain people with ties to the administration there is a valid reason to be concerned about these things.

[*bfine32*]

(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 would be the appropriate funds to use to travel to the RNC, if you are a Republican Politician up for re-election? I would suggest that your own reelection funds might not be too far into the mishandling category.

Secondly, he met (not sure if it were planned) the Ambassador at a Heritage Club event which is open to all conservatives.

[GMDino]

Lot's of excuses.

Not much in the way of honesty.

[Belsnickel]

(03-03-2017, 02:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What would be the appropriate funds to use to travel to the RNC, if you are a Republican Politician up for re-election? I would suggest that your own reelection funds might not be too far into the mishandling category.

Secondly, he met (not sure if it were planned) the Ambassador at a Heritage Club event which is open to all conservatives.

Fiscally speaking, if your trip is a combination of Senate business and politics, you use a combination of the funds. Of course, there are a number of things you use to determine the percentages and when to use it and the like.

Jumping from that, what concerns me the most about it is the song and dance we see with the topic. The forgetfulness, the misleading statements, all of it is just very suspicious. There may be nothing there, but the behavior we have been seeing does not lead one to think that way.

[BmorePat87]

The Washington Post asked all 26 members of the Armed Services Committee if they met with the Russian Ambassador last year. 20, including McCain, responded "no". 6 did not respond back.

One senior Armed Services Committee staffer said: “Members of the committee have not been beating a path to Kislyak’s door. There haven’t been a ton of members who are looking to meet with Kislyak for their committee duties.”

[GMDino]

(03-03-2017, 03:19 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Fiscally speaking, if your trip is a combination of Senate business and politics, you use a combination of the funds. Of course, there are a number of things you use to determine the percentages and when to use it and the like.

Jumping from that, what concerns me the most about it is the song and dance we see with the topic. The forgetfulness, the misleading statements, all of it is just very suspicious. There may be nothing there, but the behavior we have been seeing does not lead one to think that way.

[NATI BENGALS]

(03-03-2017, 12:51 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If he deliberately lied that is, of course, a problem.  Can someone explain to me why his meeting with the Russian ambassador after the election is meaningful or a cause for concern?

All of our intelligence agencies determined Russia hacked and meddled in our election to try and help Trump win. 

Can someone explain to me why continuous meetings before and after the election with the Russians should be looked at adoringly?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Found this thanks to Matt's "bubble" questionarre in another thread.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/all-the-ambassadors-jeff-sessions-met-in-2016/

Seems like Sessions meets with a lot of ambassadors on a rather frequent basis.  This could really be a case of nothing to see here.

[BoomerFan]

(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.

Yeah, here's an explanation I saw on reddit (thank you u/SudsyPalliation)

Important to note that Sessions used his own senate re-election campaign funds and it doesn't seem that the Trump campaign reimbursed him. However, the meaty portion explains that if Sessions was there for the purpose of fulfilling his duties as a senator he should have used the funds available to senators for that purpose. He didn't because he was there for political purposes and knew it would look bad to use those funds. He also wasn't up for re-election this year so any claim he was there for his own re-election would be dubious. 


So his claim that he was only there as a senator and not as a Trump surrogate is {explitive}. So he was speaking to the Russian ambassador as a Trump surrogate and according to a white house staffer did discuss the election. So he lied to congress during his confirmation hearing. That's perjury and he should resign and be investigated for criminal charges.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-03-2017, 04:01 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: All of our intelligence agencies determined Russia hacked and meddled in our election to try and help Trump win. 

Can someone explain to me why continuous meetings before and after the election with the Russians should be looked at adoringly?

I didn't say adoringly, I said should it cause concern.  I just posted a list of ambassadors Sessions met with, he met with the Ukrainian ambassador the day before he met with Russia's.  Secondly, Putin loathes Clinton, he would have surreptitiously aided any candidate running against her.  I was undecided on this issue until I saw the PBS, very extensive, list of other ambassadors that Session's met with.  After seeing that I don't think there's a story here.

[Millhouse]

This is just the Dems way of retaliating for how the Repubs went after Hillary for the email scandal.

On a side note it is a bit funny how the same Russian ambassador was at Trump's speech the other night and was seated on the Dems side. For future sake, I hope all that talked to him will remember speaking to him and exactly what they said.

[NATI BENGALS]

(03-03-2017, 04:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I didn't say adoringly, I said should it cause concern.  I just posted a list of ambassadors Sessions met with, he met with the Ukrainian ambassador the day before he met with Russia's.  Secondly, Putin loathes Clinton, he would have surreptitiously aided any candidate running against her.  I was undecided on this issue until I saw the PBS, very extensive, list of other ambassadors that Session's met with.  After seeing that I don't think there's a story here.

I know what you asked. 

I was following it up with a question i should have worded better. 

Why should we not have concern Trumps Campaign, advisors, and appointees have lied about and covered up lots of communcation with an unfriendly country that directly influenced our election to his benefit?

[Belsnickel]

(03-03-2017, 04:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I didn't say adoringly, I said should it cause concern.  I just posted a list of ambassadors Sessions met with, he met with the Ukrainian ambassador the day before he met with Russia's.  Secondly, Putin loathes Clinton, he would have surreptitiously aided any candidate running against her.  I was undecided on this issue until I saw the PBS, very extensive, list of other ambassadors that Session's met with.  After seeing that I don't think there's a story here.

I had previously seen the list, and I would agree with you were it not for the way the story from Sessions has evolved as more details come out and he has had to pivot.

As for the meddling, Russia doesn't like Trump, they like that there is chaos here. They meddled to meddle in addition to just not liking Clinton.

[NATI BENGALS]

(03-03-2017, 04:16 PM)Millhouse Wrote: This is just the Dems way of retaliating for how the Repubs went after Hillary for the email scandal.

On a side note it is a bit funny how the same Russian ambassador was at Trump's speech the other night and was seated on the Dems side. For future sake, I hope all that talked to him will remember speaking to him and exactly what they said.

The election is over. Sorry to burst your bubble but this is not about Hillary anymore. Continue to eat up and regurgitate that bullshit coming out of Trump though.