[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Clinton I did not have sexual relations with that woman. Lie (he thought a BJ wasnt sex its was just a BJ) but he did lie

If he truly thought that a BJ was not sex, then he did not lie. Perhaps, as Clinton did not know what sex is, you do not know what a lie is.

Sessions : “I’m not aware of any of those activities,” he responded. He added: “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.”

You left out the context of "those activities." Sessions claims he "did not have communications with the Russians" within the context of the activities under examination, which was Russia interfering with the election in favor of Trump. I do realize, however, that if it is difficult for you to grasp that saying something you believe to be true, but which is not true, is not a lie, you may have even more difficulty understanding that statements stripped of context can be worse than meaningless, they can be used to say that a statement is as lie when it isn't.

some how not a lie and here we go again with others telling us what he really ment to say

Sessions told us what he meant to say. I think that he would be the one to know that better than anybody else. And what he said was a specific response to a contextual question. Spence would understand this. Again, you may have trouble with that.

or that he answered honestly what he would do if he learned of any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of the 2016 campaign.


The question was easy "communicated with the Russian government"
session willfully dodged and gave a false answer ... If he told the truth
franken would of followed up and sessions would have stated what he now is saying 3 days later

If, in your scenario, Sessions answered Franken's follow up with what he is now saying, then what he is now saying clarifies that what he said in the first place is true. But, again, I understand that you have a hard time understanding that.

but again another shoe drops disclosures that he met with the Russian ambassador during the convention using campaign money and later in his Senate office in Washington.

The previous shoe didn't "drop." It was thrown at Sessions. And thrown back. As far as this current shoe being thrown, we'll see if it hits the mark. There sure are a lot of shoes flying at Trump and his team. And there sure seems to be a frenzied assistance by the media to keep them flying toward their target.