Trump Attorney General Jeff Sessions under fire over Russia meetings

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I feel he willfully left out he meeting with the russians because he understood it would have impacted his chances of being AG he is no dumb person .. once he has the job .. good luck getting rid of me


he willfully answered the question falsely... thats not leading by example .. but thats the trend in this administration Say 1 thing then spend weeks telling everyone what He or She ment to say .. or blame the media or the Dem's over your unforced errors

"he willfully answered the question falsely"

Here is an honest question...Did Sessions deny meeting with the ambassador, period? Or did he deny meeting with the Russian ambassador, regarding the election? The former would be a lie. The latter would not (as far as can be proven), though a little too lawyerly for my taste.

If you think Sessions should resign over this, but are OK with the fact that Attorney General Eric Holder oversaw the giving weapons to Mexican drug lords which were used to kill people...then you don't care anything about right and wrong, you only care about partisan politics.

[PaulS]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1117993]"he willfully answered the question falsely"

Here is an honest question...Did Sessions deny meeting with the ambassador, period? Or did he deny meeting with the Russian ambassador, regarding the election? The former would be a lie. The latter would not (as far as can be proven), though a little too lawyerly for my taste.

[/Q

Sessions could have said he didn't meet regarding the election but did see the Amb. 2x - once for xmin. when he stopped by and once for ymin when blah blah blah. Instead by answering the way he did, it is now up for interpretation whether he lied or not.

Don't think it is a reason to quit but a further investigation is warranted.

[Jim in CT]

[QUOTE=PaulS;1117997]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"he willfully answered the question falsely"

Here is an honest question...Did Sessions deny meeting with the ambassador, period? Or did he deny meeting with the Russian ambassador, regarding the election? The former would be a lie. The latter would not (as far as can be proven), though a little too lawyerly for my taste.

[/Q

Sessions could have said he didn't meet regarding the election but did see the Amb. 2x - once for xmin. when he stopped by and once for ymin when blah blah blah. Instead by answering the way he did, it is now up for interpretation whether he lied or not.

Don't think it is a reason to quit but a further investigation is warranted.

Agreed 100%. Recusal was a wise move, and there should be an investigation.

And someone needs to tell Trump's team, no more mistakes regarding Russia.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Sessions could have said he didn't meet regarding the election but did see the Amb. 2x - once for xmin. when he stopped by and once for ymin when blah blah blah.

He could have said even more than you suggest. He could have pointed out that his position in the Senate required meeting ambassadors from different countries, including Russia, that he may or may not have had even more than the two meetings he cited but couldn't remember, that other Senators had meetings with foreign ambassadors, that in the recent past during the Obama administration other Senators, even including Democrats, had met with a Russian ambassador . . . and on, and on.

A good lawyer will tell his client to answer questions specifically as asked an not to voluntarily provide more information than that which is asked. The intent of an adversarial interrogator, even if asking a seemingly innocuous question, is to evoke something which might be used against you. There was no valid reason to ask Sessions if he had met with any Russian other than if he did so in connection with influencing the election. Sessions answered exactly and specifically that valid question.

Instead by answering the way he did, it is now up for interpretation whether he lied or not.

Don't think it is a reason to quit but a further investigation is warranted.

Why does it require further investigation. The question was asked, and it was answered. If anything is now up for "interpretation" it's what was the actual point of Franken's question. Did he intend to ask if Session had met with "any" Russian for "any" reason? That would be largely inappropriate to ask. Or did he ask if Sessions met with someone in the Russian administration regarding, and influencing, the election. And that is the question Sessions answered.

Other than the intent of Franken's question, what further investigation is warranted?

[RIROCKHOUND]

Given all the optics of the Trump (Manafort, Page etc) and Russia connection, this looks bad, especially given the context of Russia/overall election and Sessions involvement/prominent support of Trump. Agree with JR, there is substantial evidence, but nothing clear that it had a tangible impact.

However, if reports are true, that travel expenses for one of the meetings was paid by the campaign, then this warrants more investigation for sure.

p.s. did anyone see Page's interview last night? What a smug, weaselly little guy he appeared to be....