The Official Former President Trump thread

[Savage Henry]

31 minutes ago, HTG said:

I'm not sure I heard the news right this morning. Did Trump say something along the lines that the guy wasn't lying, he could just have been more accurate? 

Wtf does that even mean? "I had no contact with Russians. This is not a lie.  I could have been more accurate though." 

It's a fucking Yes/No answer.

You can usually tell when Trump has to speak without a teleprompter - it makes absolutely no sense.    

 

[Granny Danger]

The one thing I am certain about is this.  The overwhelming majority of Trump supporters won't give a f**k.  They are not bothered that Sessions lied, they are not bothered that he is a racist, they are not bothered what Trump says or does so long as he gives the impression that he is delivering on the narrow, bigot driven, 'Make America Great Again' agenda that he campaigned on.

It is a 'them against us' situation in the U.S. at present and those who feel that they have won by getting Trump in place will give him enormous leeway until he fails on one of the issues that directly affects them.

The real issue is how much more Republicans in the Senate and Congress will take.

 

[Deplorable]

Sessions didn't lie.

Even if he was intentionally misleading the committee, which it's pretty clear he wasn't given the structure of the question, it's not legally perjury if you can offer a reasonable explanation for your answer. That is settled case law and lawyers know how to answer questions when they are under oath.

Anybody thinking that Sessions is gone shows a lack on insight into American politics or an existence in some sort of bubble.

Obama's Attorney General, Eric Holder, was caught lying to Congress. He said in testimony that he had only recently found out about Operation Fast and Furious, which allowed guns into the hands of Mexican cartels that were later used to murder Americans. Documents later came to light showing that he had known about the operation for months.

Here's Jeff Sessions interview with Tucker C

 

[DI Bruce Robertson]

Ah, I see deplorable is using the "Ad lib" approach to lies & morals by those in public office.
Fwiw, just because a member of the Obama team is viewed (by you) to have done an equal or worse act doesn't excuse Sessions- that's the epitome of whataboutery.

[Deplorable]

Easily the funniest part of this is Dem Sen. Claire McCaskill fucking up big time in her haste to indict Sessions.

 

[Deplorable]

4 minutes ago, DI Bruce Robertson said:

Ah, I see deplorable is using the "Ad lib" approach to lies & morals by those in public office.
Fwiw, just because a member of the Obama team is viewed (by you) to have done an equal or worse act doesn't excuse Sessions- that's the epitome of whataboutery.

No, I'm saying that I watched the exchange and I listened to Sessions explanation. I think what he's saying makes more sense than him lying about something that was public record and he had a legit reasoning behind with witnesses to what was said at the meeting. I was just pointing out that even if you believe the worst about what he was saying, it's not legally perjury.

[Deplorable]

We now know the real reason Joe Biden decided not to run. He claimed it was due to mourning his son Beau's death. It's come out that Beau's widow is dating Hunter Biden, Joe's other son. Hunter is still married, but separated. The timeline on when his new relationship started is unclear. Hunter's wife is claiming in divorce filings that he's been blowing through all their money on prostitutes and drugs since their separation. She's asking a judge put a hold on his assets. Hunter was kicked out of the military while Joe was Vice President over his cocaine use. I'm sure the Clinton mafia gently let Joe know that politics isn't a nice sport.

[DI Bruce Robertson]

No, I'm saying that I watched the exchange and I listened to Sessions explanation. I think what he's saying makes more sense than him lying about something that was public record and he had a legit reasoning behind with witnesses to what was said at the meeting. I was just pointing out that even if you believe the worst about what he was saying, it's not legally perjury.

Your first sentence was

"Sessions didn't lie"

Followed up with "even if he deliberately misled"

How do you justify these two statements? For me, going on to state that it isn't legal perjury, shows that exactly what you are doing is using the "ad lib" method.

[Deplorable]

5 minutes ago, DI Bruce Robertson said:

Your first sentence was

"Sessions didn't lie"

Followed up with "even if he deliberately misled"

How do you justify these two statements? For me, going on to state that it isn't legal perjury, shows that exactly what you are doing is using the "ad lib" method.

I don't think he lied.

Then I was responding to the people who earlier in this thread said it was perjury. I think that even under the worst circumstance for Sessions, that he was intentionally misleading the Senate, he has a valid defense under perjury case law. I don't think that he needs this defense. Go watch the actual exchange. Then consider that Sessions had reasonable reasons for meeting the Russian ambassador. Once was the day after he met the Ukrainian ambassador and was about Crimea. There were other people at the meeting. Once was after a public speech that was attended by many ambassadors and he made small talk afterwards. Almost everyone on his Senate committee has met with numerous ambassadors as part of their job, including the Russian ambassador. Why would he lie? It makes sense based on the line of questioning that Sen. Franken was referring to his capacity as part of the Trump campaign, not his capacity as a Senator.

[Savage Henry]

I would say it's almost certainly the case that Sessions has perjured himself by talking policy with Moscow. It's just a question of whether he was smart enough (unlike Flynn) to be subtle about it.  If there turns out to be any investigation by a special prosecutor into the Trump/Moscow relationship, Sessions is probably done for, but then again, so is Trump if it comes to that.  It only takes one recording to get Sessions into even more hot water, and most likely incarceration.

At the very best, he has been weaselly with his answers to the Senate, which is extremely risky as a matter of policy, but not in itself a resigning issue.  He's now next to useless as Attorney General.

  

[DI Bruce Robertson]

I don't think he lied.
Then I was responding to the people who earlier in this thread said it was perjury. I think that even under the worst circumstance for Sessions, that he was intentionally misleading the Senate, he has a valid defense under perjury case law. I don't think that he needs this defense. Go watch the actual exchange. Then consider that Sessions had reasonable reasons for meeting the Russian ambassador. Once was the day after he met the Ukrainian ambassador and was about Crimea. There were other people at the meeting. Once was after a public speech that was attended by many ambassadors and he made small talk afterwards. Almost everyone on his Senate committee has met with numerous ambassadors as part of their job, including the Russian ambassador. Why would he lie? It makes sense based on the line of questioning that Sen. Franken was referring to his capacity as part of the Trump campaign, not his capacity as a Senator.

Sorry, I think we are at cross purposes here.
My thoughts are this- when asked if he had met with Russians as part of the Trump Campaign his reply was (under oath)....

"I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign, and I did not have communications with the Russians,"

Subsequently this turned out to be utterly untrue- I'm not disputing the reasons for meeting the Russian Ambassador may have been legitimate, what I'm saying is this- why lie? This is the crux of the matter.
The facts are, he misled the Senate Committee- under oath.
This is entirely why he is unfit for office.

Unlike others who think that lying by our representatives is entirely acceptable & indeed, to be expected, I completely disagree. The only exception is on major issues of national security and citizens lives could be put at risk directly & unnecessarily.
You hold a different viewpoint- the same as Ad Lib, which means my OP was entirely correct.
You've tried to deny this.

Why the cover up?

[Deplorable]

2 minutes ago, DI Bruce Robertson said:

Why the cover up?

That's my point. It would all make no sense to cover up. What makes the most sense is that Sessions was saying he'd never met with the Russians regarding the Trump campaign. That's really the only thing that makes sense considering that he had multiple public meetings with the Russian ambassador in his job as Senator.

What also makes sense is that Mr. Sessions is a scary, scary Attorney General to those on the left and they would do anything to discredit him. See Mrs. McCaskill's lies about how people on their committee would never meet with the Russian ambassador as part of their job. Ooops, we know of at least twice that she did based on tweets and pictures.

[DI Bruce Robertson]

That's my point. It would all make no sense to cover up. What makes the most sense is that Sessions was saying he'd never met with the Russians regarding the Trump campaign. That's really the only thing that makes sense considering that he had multiple public meetings with the Russian ambassador in his job as Senator.

What also makes sense is that Mr. Sessions is a scary, scary Attorney General to those on the left and they would do anything to discredit him. See Mrs. McCaskill's lies about how people on their committee would never meet with the Russian ambassador as part of their job. Ooops, we know of at least twice that she did based on tweets and pictures.

Why the cover up?

 

That was in relation to your denial of employing Ad Lib levels of morality & scrutiny of public officials [emoji57]

 

Only Sessions can answer your point regarding his lies- why lie indeed?

My experience of lying politicos is that rarely (if ever) it is done with public interest at heart, it's normally done for entirely selfish reasons- "why" in this case may come out eventually.....

 

Mckaskill is entirely guilty of lying too, the only difference being that she wasn't under oath & isn't AG.

A liar nonetheless and should be rightly hounded for it.

 

More whataboutery IMO.

 

ETA- Sessions may have misled the Senate Committee because he thought he'd never be exposed as a liar - in fact I'm almost certain that figured in his answer.

[Jambomo]

1 hour ago, Deplorable said:

That's my point. It would all make no sense to cover up. What makes the most sense is that Sessions was saying he'd never met with the Russians regarding the Trump campaign. That's really the only thing that makes sense considering that he had multiple public meetings with the Russian ambassador in his job as Senator.

What also makes sense is that Mr. Sessions is a scary, scary Attorney General to those on the left and they would do anything to discredit him. See Mrs. McCaskill's lies about how people on their committee would never meet with the Russian ambassador as part of their job. Ooops, we know of at least twice that she did based on tweets and pictures.

It makes sense to cover it up if you believe you are protected and no one is going to pull you up on it which, in the US at present, is an entirely possible assumption.

He stated "I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign, and I did not have communications with the Russians,"  That is an outright lie said with the intention of misleading. It was stupid as well, as surely to state that he did meet with the Russian Ambassador on unrelated Senate business would be both an acceptable explanation and (if he had been doing anything illegal) would have been a much better cover story.

[DI Bruce Robertson]

It makes sense to cover it up if you believe you are protected and no one is going to pull you up on it which, in the US at present, is an entirely possible assumption.
He stated "I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign, and I did not have communications with the Russians,"  That is an outright lie said with the intention of misleading. It was stupid as well, as surely to state that he did meet with the Russian Ambassador on unrelated Senate business would be both an acceptable explanation and (if he had been doing anything illegal) would have been a much better cover story.

Exactly this, why try to cover up a routine meeting? I assume that any meetings that took place as part of his remit in his capacity as a Senator would have been minuted and communicated to the others in the defence committee?

[topcat(The most tip top)]

You can usually tell when Trump has to speak without a teleprompter - it makes absolutely no sense.    

 

You can always tell when he's lying

His lips move

[Deplorable]

7 minutes ago, DI Bruce Robertson said:

Exactly this, why try to cover up a routine meeting? I assume that any meetings that took place as part of his remit in his capacity as a Senator would have been minuted and communicated to the others in the defence committee?

Right. That's why I believe him. The only explanation that makes any sense is the one that he's giving. There is no cover up. He meant that he didn't meet with anybody from Russia regarding Trump's campaign and now the Democrats are trying to bring him down based solely on an imprecise use of language. 

[Shades75]

1 minute ago, Deplorable said:

Right. That's why I believe him. The only explanation that makes any sense is the one that he's giving. There is no cover up. He meant that he didn't meet with anybody from Russia regarding Trump's campaign and now the Democrats are trying to bring him down based solely on an imprecise use of language. 

That's not why you believe him.

You believe him because you want to.  Any explanation is just to confirm a bias.

[madwullie]

Pretty bad times when an attorney general can't choose the precise language that will make his position clear. 

[DI Bruce Robertson]

Right. That's why I believe him. The only explanation that makes any sense is the one that he's giving. There is no cover up. He meant that he didn't meet with anybody from Russia regarding Trump's campaign and now the Democrats are trying to bring him down based solely on an imprecise use of language. 

No, another explanation that would make sense is that electoral campaign issues were also discussed and had to be hidden.
Are all other members of the defence committee in possession of the minutes / transcripts of these meetings? If not, is this common practise for one committee member to hold such meetings & not communicate the discussion?
If it's normal procedure, why?
I can completely understand them not being in the public domain, BUT, if it was under the auspices of the Defence Committee and him being a senator, why are these records not available to other committee members?