Sessions Denies Talking Campaign with Russians

[NightHawkeye]

Sessions Denies Talking Campaign with Russians

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said early Thursday that he would be willing to recuse himself from any investigation of Russian involvement in the Trump campaign if it's "appropriate."
...
Sessions defended himself during his comments with NBC News, saying has never discussed “any political campaigns” with Russian officials.

“Well, I have not met with any Russians at any time to discuss any political campaigns,” he said. "Those remarks are unbelievable to me and are false. I don’t have anything else to say about that.”​

 

[tulc]

Still trying to spin this as "Didn't talk campaign" when that's not what it's about huh?
tulc(wonders how that's going to work out?)

 

[AirPo]

How can Trump trust Sessions now? He has to go. But he's a great guy.

 

[NightHawkeye]

How can Trump trust Sessions now? He has to go. But he's a great guy.

If Trump wants to replace him with Ted Cruz, I'd support that.

There are certainly other good men available to serve as Attorney General ... and willing to enforce the law.

 

[Rion]

Still trying to spin this as "Didn't talk campaign" when that's not what it's about huh?
tulc(wonders how that's going to work out?)

Simple. They asked him about meeting with Russians in regards to the campaign. He said no. Now, WaPo wants to pretend that they were asking about the time he met with them as a result of his job in Congress, which was not the topic.

Anyone who is not pretendingthe WaPo is the same paper that broke Watergate is fully aware of how much bull squeeze the rag puts out these days.

I do find it cute that the same people who rightly question Breitbart for being so close to the current administration won't bat an eye at unquestionably believing the paper whose owner has known business connections to the CIA of all things.

 

[tulc]

uhmmm...
Analysis | Jeff Sessions’s denials of contact with Russians are falling apart quickly

Attorney General Jeff Sessions's spokeswoman released a statement late Wednesday after The Washington Post reported Sessions had spoken twice with Russia's ambassador last year — contacts he failed to disclose in his confirmation hearings.

“I never met with any Russian officials to discuss the issues of the campaign,” Sessions said. “I have no idea what this allegation is about. It is false.”

This is a remarkably misleading non-denial denial. Sessions, in the course of three sentences, manufactures a straw man, props him up and then knocks him down. He is denying a report that doesn't exist.

The fact is The Post never reported that Sessions and the Russian ambassador discussed “issues of the campaign.” The report was that he met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, period — apparently despite the Trump campaign's repeated denials of contact with Russian officials and despite Sessions's own apparent denials during his confirmation hearings.

tulc(sees the spin doesn't seem to be working all that well)

 

[Rion]

uhmmm...
Analysis | Jeff Sessions’s denials of contact with Russians are falling apart quickly

tulc(sees the spin doesn't seem to be working all that well)

Yeah, once again, they are either being completely dishonest or incredibly stupid. At this point, I am done visiting their site. If you want me to view something from them in the future, please archive it.

 

[tulc]

Yeah, once again, they are either being completely dishonest or incredibly stupid. At this point, I am done visiting their site. If you want me to view something from them in the future, please archive it.

Ignoring isn't refuting.
tulc(in case anyone is curious)

 

[Allandavid]

Yeah, once again, they are either being completely dishonest or incredibly stupid. At this point, I am done visiting their site. If you want me to view something from them in the future, please archive it.

Magnificent rebuttal....

 

[Moral Orel]

Simple. They asked him about meeting with Russians in regards to the campaign. He said no. Now, WaPo wants to pretend that they were asking about the time he met with them as a result of his job in Congress, which was not the topic.

As I said in the other thread, because apparently we need two, this isn't about his WaPo interview. It is about his statement in his confirmation hearing.

 

[Rion]

As I explained elsewhere, he met with them as a member of the armed services committee, something Franken knew he did. They are being dishonest or stupid to not understand this fact.

 

[NightHawkeye]

As I explained elsewhere, he met with them as a member of the armed services committee, something Franken knew he did. They are being dishonest or stupid to not understand this fact.

They are being partisan ... blowing smoke ... and claiming there's a "Fire".

 

[Moral Orel]

As I explained elsewhere, he met with them as a member of the armed services committee, something Franken knew he did. They are being dishonest or stupid to not understand this fact.

They are being partisan ... blowing smoke ... and claiming there's a "Fire".

I haven't once said this is evidence of him colluding with Russians to get Trump elected or even alluded to any other sinister or nefarious plot. I am simply calling a lie, a lie. It doesn't matter what context he met with the ambassador when he stated he "did not have communications". His statement was false, and I don't give anyone the benefit of the doubt that they "did not recall" to claim it was an innocent mistake. Not Sessions, not Hillary, nobody.

 

[NightHawkeye]

I haven't once said this is evidence of him colluding with Russians to get Trump elected or even alluded to any other sinister or nefarious plot. I am simply calling a lie, a lie. It doesn't matter what context he met with the ambassador when he stated he "did not have communications". His statement was false, and I don't give anyone the benefit of the doubt that they "did not recall" to claim it was an innocent mistake. Not Sessions, not Hillary, nobody.

You keep calling it a lie, as if saying that again and again will actually make it so.

It doesn't.

 

[tulc]

You keep calling it a lie, as if saying that again and again will actually make it so.

It doesn't.

So if someone said to you "NightHawkeye, did you post in this thread?" and you said, "No I never did post in this thread." Would you call that a lie or would it be something else?
tulc(is curious)

 

[Uncle Siggy]

You keep calling it a lie, as if saying that again and again will actually make it so.

It doesn't.

Here this should amuse you: http://downtrend.com/markeece/trump...n-into-his-relationship-with-putin-and-russia

 

[tulc]

Here this should amuse you: http://downtrend.com/markeece/trump...n-into-his-relationship-with-putin-and-russia

Wow...I had no idea Senator Schumer lied under oath about having a meeting with President Putin. Can you post a link to when he testified to that?
tulc(has to say though, getting a picture taken with President Putin kind of defeats the whole "secret meeting" idea)

 

[Moral Orel]

You keep calling it a lie, as if saying that again and again will actually make it so.

It doesn't.

I'm not the one in partisan denial.

 

[mark46]

The fuss seems to be about all the coverup and Trump team's obvious incompetence. Trump doesn't want anyone saying that the Russians are responsible for his being elected. Obviously, there were lots of discussions between Trump folks and Russians, before and after the nomination. This should be expected given his open campaign position that he wants the US to be closer to Russia than was the case in the Obama administration. After all, there was once a Republican platform plank calling for more action against Russia because of their actions in the Ukraine and especially Crimea. That plank was removed since it obviously was not Trump's position. Trump had folks on board who used to work for the Russians or for their Ukrainian puppet party (Flynn and Manford). Trump made no secret of their policies or beliefs. Clearly, he shared much of what they believed. Sessions used to be strongly anti-Russian. After being part of the campaign (for months the only Senator supporting Trump), Sessions changed his position little by little until his statement became similar to those of Trump (understandable).

Trump wants a different relationship with Russia. Now, this change will be more limited than was possible before, given the close scrutiny that Republicans and Democrats will have for any such policy changes. He may prevent new sanctions, but I suspect that he will need to veto such legislation, after the hearings by the Intelligence Committee.
===========

I think that the Senate Intelligence Committee (and Judiciary also if necessary) will have a reasonable investigation of the Russian involvement in the US election, before and after the nomination. Of course, they will investigate any contact between any campaign and any Russians, especially anyone involved in intelligence. Transcripts and reports of meetings will be investigated. Feinstein and Rubio both want to know the truth with regard to the Russian involvement. I trust them to cry foul and ask for a Special Prosecutor if that seems necessary. I also trust the FBI investigation, being led by an Obama appointee. Obviously, this person will be called to testify at the Seante committees at some point.

The problem is that the public wants to know the whole story, including all the gory details. For security reasons that isn't possible, and shouldn't be possible.

Most important is being able to improve our cyber security in order to prevent future Russian actions in the US, and also in France, and also in Germany.

 

[Uncle Siggy]

Wow...I had no idea Senator Schumer lied under oath about having a meeting with President Putin. Can you post a link to when he testified to that?
tulc(has to say though, getting a picture taken with President Putin kind of defeats the whole "secret meeting" idea)

You didn't find the link to be amusing???

Well then how about this one: Schumer and Gillibrand Helped Athlete Being Held on Sex Charges Obtain Visa