|
Post by michaelw on Mar 3, 2017 4:14:32 GMT -5
Personally, I don't think Sessions was being especially honest in his confirmation hearing.
The best defense I've seen of what he said is basically this:
When Sessions said he hadn't had communications with the Russians, he meant he hadn't as a person associated with the Trump campaign, not as a member of the Senate.
But that doesn't strike me as a great defense. No one was stopping him from qualifying his answer, right? Instead, he chose a fairly categorical answer that left out information the senate clearly would've wanted to know about.
Why would he do that?
Well, probably if he had admitted to any meetings with the Russian ambassador, that would've led to further uncomfortable questioning, which he probably wanted to avoid altogether.
I think Sessions should go the way of Flynn, though I can't say I'll be surprised if he sticks around.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Mar 3, 2017 5:58:38 GMT -5
I think you've got the truth of it. Sessions was clearly taking what he assumed would be the easier path. Why he thought he wouldn't be found out? Hubris, I guess.
The sooner Sessions is gone, the sooner I'll breathe a little easier. He's among the more dangerous of Trump's appointments, IMO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2017 7:34:40 GMT -5
I think he should go the way of Flynn.
As Michael notes, no one was stopping him from qualifying his answer -- "Yes, I did have contact, in my capacity as x, to discuss y." Moreover, he knew this was a material issue, given the Russian hacking and the demands for an investigation (an investigation he'd be taking a leading role in.) It's not even like it was some dead-and-gone issue that would have maybe looked a little bad and been awkward to explain (of course, even then he should disclose it) -- this is a current hot issue, one in which the integrity of the Trump administration is at stake.
The fact that he lied by omission about it -- and that had he not been outed, would have continued to do so, despite the investigation -- is extremely disturbing. I see no excuse for it.
I don't know what was said in his conversations with the Russians. But whatever was said, he should have put it on the line and opened himself to questions about it. The fact he didn't is a problem. The guy is supposed to be the top law enforcement official in the country -- what kind of standard is this setting?
ETA:
To note: I would not regard the mere fact that he spoke with Russian officials in the course of his work as a senator about things pertaining to that work as something that should disqualify him from being attorney general (or, for that matter, from being involved with the investigation). But even assuming that's all the conversations were, the fact that he dodged questioning about them in his confirmation hearing -- and reading the transcript, I'd argue he in fact fibbed -- is on its own a problem. Worse still, his silence raises the issue of just how innocent those conversations were.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 3, 2017 9:21:25 GMT -5
Sure, I think he should resign. I don't know if his actions are terribly egregious, but he got caught screwing up and that's enough, imo. We need to hold people in government to a higher standard whenever possible, imo.
'Course, I felt the same way about many past officials--Timothy Geithner comes to mind--but there's always a crowd of defenders, one way or the other.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Mar 3, 2017 12:08:35 GMT -5
I've read some on this, but not as much as I'd like. But since I'm getting ready to fly to Denver for the weekend (more volleyball, lots of college coaches watching), I'm going to throw out my two cents anyway from what I've gathered so far. 1) Jeff Sessions should not resign but it's good that he's recused himself. (for propriety's sake) 2) This is much ado about very little 3) Chuck Schumer needs a fainting couch "...pit of my stomach..." Please... It's almost as bad as the tears about the temporary immigration halt from certain countries linked to high terrorist activities 4) Nancy Pelosi...enough said 5) When Al Franken starts his questioning of Sessions by emphasizing numerous times the concern and the coming news reports about exhange of information between Trump surrogates and Russians, WHY WOULDN'T SESSIONS ANSWER THE QUESTION WITH REGARDS TO HIM BEING A TRUMP SURROGATE, rather than his normal work as a senator on the Armed Services Committee? Especially since these senator meetings would be so easy to verify. Really, I think this is pretty straightforward. And I've read that one of his "meetings" consisted of a few brief remarks near the podium after Sessions had given a talk of some sort at a Heritage Foundation function, that the Russian ambassador complimented him on. Okayyyy This is another attempt by the attack dog Dems to bring down a member of the new administration by any means possible, since they can't do it with votes. EDITED TO ADD: Those college coaches I mentioned are not there to watch my daughter, haha. There are hundreds of players at Junior National qualifiers. She's only a freshman and not as tall as they usually like. But we're hoping she might catch someone's eye. I read this again and it sounded like I was bragging.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2017 12:34:19 GMT -5
C.e., seriously -- "much ado about nothing"? I don't even know what to say to you, I really don't.
(1) Russia hacked into American servers with the intent of influencing our election. That should be something all Americans are concerned about, whoever won the election.
(2) There have been allegations that some on the Trump campaign have had improper contact with Russian officials. Michael Flynn has already gone down for fibbing about discussing sanctions with Russian officials. There are real questions as to what other Trump surrogates might have done -- and given what happened with Flynn, you cannot possibly assert those concerns are groundless.
(3) High-standing representatives on both sides of the political aisle have called for an investigation into the Russian hacking and who knew what when.
(4) Sessions said he had no contacts with Russian officials. He didn't qualify it. He knew about all of the above issues, and knew that many think they're a pretty damn big deal. Still, he said nothing.
Here's the relevant snippet from Session's confirmation hearings:
Why on EARTH wouldn't he mention that he did meet with Russian officials, even if it wasn't for nefarious purposes? Surely the fact that he did so is relevant. Surely the Senate should have the opportunity to ask him about those meetings. Surely it was obvious that all contacts with Russia are going to be a big goddamn deal and need to be disclosed. This isn't a job interview to be a fry cook at McDonalds. This was a confirmation hearing for the freaking attorney general of the U.S.
Flynn was caught redhanded fibbing about the content of his meetings with Russians. You are happy to blithely assume that Sessions isn't?
You'd be screaming bloody murder if this were someone Clinton appointed. (And so, indeed, would I.)
I could see your arguing that this is not quite as big a deal as some of us think it is. But "much ado about nothing"?
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Mar 3, 2017 12:51:11 GMT -5
So from what I understand about this, Sessions was asked about if he was aware of the Trump campaign having contact with Russia. When answering, he volunteered that he had not as well. That part of the answer wasn't even needed to answer the question. Yes, he should have been far more careful about his answer. I think he should privately offer his resignation, because it's an issue that the Trump has to deal with. If Trump decides not to, which is his right, fine. All of that might have happened behind the scenes. I understand what everyone is saying that nothing stopped him from quantifying his answer, but that could very easily have been an error. He was speaking as someone campaigning for the Trump team, not as a senator. If you read what he said below, you could even say it was a matter of just being clearer that he was answering as someone as a surrogate. www.nationalreview.com/corner/445421/why-would-jeff-sessions-lie-answer-question-he-wasnt-askedIt also seems that the left is being rather disingenuous here. Take tweets pointed out by National Review by Clair Maskill www.nationalreview.com/corner/445407/claire-mccaskill-did-meet-russian-ambassador-twicec9.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/Screen%20Shot%202017-03-02%20at%209.07.50%20AM.png Read more at: www.nationalreview.com/corner/445407/claire-mccaskill-did-meet-russian-ambassador-twiceIt seems clear to me the focus of the questions was on the campaign, not on his activities as a Senator. Besides, people seemed to go batcrap crazy when it looked like Hillary had possibly given false testimony before congress. www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/15/house-gop-lays-out-perjury-case-hillary-clinton/It was called a witch hunt back then. People were fine with electing someone to the most powerful office in the world despite that, yet now Sessions should be forced to resign? Like I said, he screwed up. It's caused a headache. If Trump wanted him gone, fine. But legally forced. I'm not seeing it here.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 3, 2017 13:16:54 GMT -5
Of course Sessions should resign and if he had any ethics he would, but then nobody in the Trump Administration knows jack about ethics because they never received the training.If skeevy shit is happening in the Trump Administration, go ahead and blame the media or the opposition party or call it "fake news" but it won't change the fact that the Attorney General of the United States lied in his testimony to the U.S. Senate and that is against the law. Sessions met twice with the Russian ambassador and then denied any contact. How should we regard a perjurer? Let's ask Jeff Sessions:Michael Flynn had to resign over his undisclosed meetings with the Russians. Now it's time for Sessions to do likewise. If Sessions were a Democrat the long knives would already be sharpened and out for his blood. NOBODY who raised hell about Hillary Clinton's damn emails who isn't raising hell about the Trumpettes playing footsie with the Kremlin has a leg to stand on. Your moral compass is broken. Put in the shop and shut the hell up until you get it fixed.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Mar 3, 2017 14:01:37 GMT -5
He was meeting in his capacity as a member of the Armed Services Committee? What's worrisome about that? He was not a Trump surrogate at that time. I stand by my assertion that the Sessions issue is much ado about very little. Which is what I said the first time - "much ado about very little". I was specific there on purpose. Yes there should be an investigation. And no Sessions should not be involved. But...
I am still waiting for evidence to come forth that there was nefarious contact between Trump surrogates and Russians during the election. So far, the House Intelligence Committee says they have none. I am forced to conclude, again, much ado about very little. But if we can take a Trump admin official down in the process, hey why not? *hopefully obvious sarcasm*
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Mar 3, 2017 14:51:19 GMT -5
He was meeting in his capacity as a member of the Armed Services Committee? What's worrisome about that? He was not a Trump surrogate at that time. I stand by my assertion that the Sessions issue is much ado about very little. Which is what I said the first time - "much ado about very little". I was specific there on purpose. Yes there should be an investigation. And no Sessions should not be involved. But... I am still waiting for evidence to come forth that there was nefarious contact between Trump surrogates and Russians during the election. So far, the House Intelligence Committee says they have none. I am forced to conclude, again, much ado about very little. But if we can take a Trump admin official down in the process, hey why not? *hopefully obvious sarcasm* Refresh my memory, what was your position on foreign donors to the Clinton Foundation, and Hillary's email server issues?
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 3, 2017 15:22:11 GMT -5
He was meeting in his capacity as a member of the Armed Services Committee? What's worrisome about that? He was not a Trump surrogate at that time. I stand by my assertion that the Sessions issue is much ado about very little. Which is what I said the first time - "much ado about very little". I was specific there on purpose. Yes there should be an investigation. And no Sessions should not be involved. But... I am still waiting for evidence to come forth that there was nefarious contact between Trump surrogates and Russians during the election. So far, the House Intelligence Committee says they have none. I am forced to conclude, again, much ado about very little. But if we can take a Trump admin official down in the process, hey why not? *hopefully obvious sarcasm* If it's "much ado about very little" why did Sessions recuse himself? When the Attorney General has to step aside from overseeing an investigation it seems like much ado about something. There should be an bipartisan commission and maybe an independent prosecutor looking into the ties between the Russians and the Trump Administration, but as long as Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan can resist, there won't be. They'd rather focus on destroying Obamacare, gutting EPA regulations so corporations can dump pollutants into rivers and getting their brag on about Trump's speech to Congress which proved he can read a teleprompter and stay on message. Well, we'll see how long the Repubs can play "stall ball" waiting for the news cycle to turn its tsete fly attention span to another celebrity break-up or screw up at an awards show. Maybe they'll even get away with this b.s. Maybe they won't.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Mar 3, 2017 15:45:28 GMT -5
He was meeting in his capacity as a member of the Armed Services Committee? What's worrisome about that? He was not a Trump surrogate at that time. I stand by my assertion that the Sessions issue is much ado about very little. Which is what I said the first time - "much ado about very little". I was specific there on purpose. Yes there should be an investigation. And no Sessions should not be involved. But... I am still waiting for evidence to come forth that there was nefarious contact between Trump surrogates and Russians during the election. So far, the House Intelligence Committee says they have none. I am forced to conclude, again, much ado about very little. But if we can take a Trump admin official down in the process, hey why not? *hopefully obvious sarcasm* Refresh my memory, what was your position on foreign donors to the Clinton Foundation, and Hillary's email server issues? The email server issue was something that showed Clinton to be careless and pointed to a pattern of behavior where she might think she was above the rules for normal people. And it was important enough for me to include that in reasons not to vote for her and probably a valid reason for many not to. But I never called for her arrest. I felt sort of like -- those in the know will work this out appropriately. The Clinton Foundation was one of those things that could have been a big deal if evidence was found of it being a big deal and then Clinton became POTUS. If I recall correctly, I don't think the stuff that was found was a big deal. It was probably mostly partisan wailing, though I didn't research it much. Just like this (Session's answer or his "meetings") isn't a big deal. I will stand corrected if evidence comes out that proves me wrong. I'm sure you're setting me up for something. Will wait nervously for it
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Mar 3, 2017 15:59:07 GMT -5
Refresh my memory, what was your position on foreign donors to the Clinton Foundation, and Hillary's email server issues? The email server issue was something that showed Clinton to be careless and pointed to a pattern of behavior where she might think she was above the rules for normal people. And it was important enough for me to include that in reasons not to vote for her and probably a valid reason for many not to. But I never called for her arrest. I felt sort of like -- those in the know will work this out appropriately. The Clinton Foundation was one of those things that could have been a big deal if evidence was found of it being a big deal and then Clinton became POTUS. If I recall correctly, I don't think the stuff that was found was a big deal. It was probably mostly partisan wailing, though I didn't research it much. Just like this (Session's answer or his "meetings") isn't a big deal. I will stand corrected if evidence comes out that proves me wrong. I'm sure you're setting me up for something. Will wait nervously for it I'm not setting you up, I think my intended point was fairly obvious. I didn't recall whether you were one of the people bewailing Clinton being "influenced" by foreign donors, but many GOPers (and Trump supporters especially) certainly were, and your cavalier attitude towards Trump and his close advisors being so cozy with Russia strikes me as suspicious. As for Clinton and the email server, you know how I feel about that, but likewise, a senior government official not disclosing contacts with a foreign power? Especially Russia? That is a national security issue. My point, to make it unambiguous, is that you have a pattern of going "pooh pooh" about Republican misdeeds that you would certainly not pooh pooh if Democrats were doing the same thing. Being partisan is natural and all of us do it to an extent - I try to be relentlessly honest and even-handed because I dislike hypocrisy and double standards, but at times I probably am more critical of people I dislike than of people I like. But you, celaw, habitually see everything Trump through rose-colored glasses, and while I am not asking or expecting you to change your mind about him, I am asking you to please consider, when you defend Republicans or criticize Democrats, whether you are making a snap judgment that you would make differently if the parties were reversed.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Mar 3, 2017 17:54:08 GMT -5
This is another attempt by the attack dog Dems to bring down a member of the new administration by any means possible, since they can't do it with votes. To be fair, it's not just democrats who think there's a real problem here: www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/2/14791108/bush-ethics-lawyer-trumps-russia-scandalAlthough on the other hand, I read on Breitbart that Don, Cass, Rob, and myself are all being paid by George Soros to go after Sessions. Democratic attack dogs unite!
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Mar 4, 2017 13:45:10 GMT -5
The email server issue was something that showed Clinton to be careless and pointed to a pattern of behavior where she might think she was above the rules for normal people. And it was important enough for me to include that in reasons not to vote for her and probably a valid reason for many not to. But I never called for her arrest. I felt sort of like -- those in the know will work this out appropriately. The Clinton Foundation was one of those things that could have been a big deal if evidence was found of it being a big deal and then Clinton became POTUS. If I recall correctly, I don't think the stuff that was found was a big deal. It was probably mostly partisan wailing, though I didn't research it much. Just like this (Session's answer or his "meetings") isn't a big deal. I will stand corrected if evidence comes out that proves me wrong. I'm sure you're setting me up for something. Will wait nervously for it I'm not setting you up, I think my intended point was fairly obvious. I didn't recall whether you were one of the people bewailing Clinton being "influenced" by foreign donors, but many GOPers (and Trump supporters especially) certainly were, and your cavalier attitude towards Trump and his close advisors being so cozy with Russia strikes me as suspicious. As for Clinton and the email server, you know how I feel about that, but likewise, a senior government official not disclosing contacts with a foreign power? Especially Russia? That is a national security issue. My point, to make it unambiguous, is that you have a pattern of going "pooh pooh" about Republican misdeeds that you would certainly not pooh pooh if Democrats were doing the same thing. Being partisan is natural and all of us do it to an extent - I try to be relentlessly honest and even-handed because I dislike hypocrisy and double standards, but at times I probably am more critical of people I dislike than of people I like. But you, celaw, habitually see everything Trump through rose-colored glasses, and while I am not asking or expecting you to change your mind about him, I am asking you to please consider, when you defend Republicans or criticize Democrats, whether you are making a snap judgment that you would make differently if the parties were reversed. Oh, that's funny - I just clicked on "like" for your post above when I meant to quote it. Anyway, yes I feel myself becoming more partisan since the election, because the Democrats have been going nuts over any and every little thing in a concerted attempt to bring down Trump any way they can, fairly or not. And lucky them, they have the majority of the mainstream news media more than happy to help in this effort. This is an actual strategy, and anyone who doesn't see this is not looking very hard. Did Nancy Pelosi or Chuck "No More Tears" Schumer ever call for Clinton to step down after it was revealed she lied multiple times to congress about her emails? There's a lot of hypocrisy there. And we don't even know if Sessions actually lied. I happen to think he answered the question he thought pertained to meeting with Russia as a surrogate of Trump. I do not think he willfully lied about this. He met with many ambassadors of other countries during his work in the Armed Services Committee. One source I read said over 20. That was part of his job. The Dems are trying to lump this together with the Russia conspiracy, and I don't agree they should. As I said before, the Russia thing is important to get to the bottom of. And Sessions should recuse himself. But at this point I don't believe Sessions had any election related contact with the Russians, and I believe he was answering the question he thought he was being asked. Here's a question for you all -- why wasn't Al Franken more precise when he asked his question?
|
|