General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJeff Sessions - responds to Senate Judiciary today - digging deeper
...snip...
Attorney General Jeff Sessions sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee Monday to "supplement testimony given during his confirmation hearings in January, in which he said I did not have communications with the Russians.
In fact, Sessions met twice with the Russian ambassador to the United States during the 2016 presidential campaign, despite denying any contact to Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) during his confirmation hearings.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sessions-letter-judiciary-committee
I did not mention communications I had had with the Russian Ambassador over the years because the question did not ask about them, Sessions wrote in it, referring to his response to Frankens question.
I do not recall any discussions with the Russian Ambassador, or any other representative of the Russian government, regarding the political campaign on these occasions or any other occasions," he added later.
This letter should be classified under oath - ?????
rzemanfl
(29,557 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)It simply doesn't matter what he was asked. He voluntarily said he had no contact with Russians! That's perjury!
asiliveandbreathe
(8,203 posts)Let's just call it the big dig! and digging and d...
I did not mention communications I had had with the Russian Ambassador over the years because the question did not ask about them - in the letter no less..this doesn't even make sense..
ProudLib72
(17,984 posts)I wonder if the letter is under oath. If they find out he did talk to the ambassador about the campaign, then they really have him.
asiliveandbreathe
(8,203 posts)still searching - but the comments at link are very interesting..
ProudLib72
(17,984 posts)is rolling a big fat doobie and blowing the smoke in Sessions' face.
asiliveandbreathe
(8,203 posts)Sounds like written statement is under oath...and, the statement is sessions blowing smoke in our face..perhaps he should take it up! Might change his mind - especially now!
underpants
(182,802 posts)Like an idiot on the stand trying to over prove his innocence he stated, outside of the question, that he hadn't met with any Russians. That was a lie.
trof
(54,256 posts)After many years away, I returned to Alabama in 1993.
Sessions was already the junior senator from the state.
I have no idea how he got elected, what his power/money base was or is, or whatever.
He is a lightweight.
kentuck
(111,094 posts)so that he could play a puppet for a pathological liar and an unstable narcissist.
Princess Turandot
(4,787 posts)separate statutes that come into play here. Section 1621 relates to false testimony under oath, which is perjury. Section 1001 covers testimony which is not under oath:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2014-title18/pdf/USCODE-2014-title18-partI-chap47-sec1001.pdf
An explanation of this from CNBC: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/07/what-happens-if-you-lie-to-congress.html
asiliveandbreathe
(8,203 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)regardless of whether or not their states have voted to legalize.
Apparently it is vitally important that the letter of that law be enforced fully, resources and logic be damned.
But, you know, Perjury before congress we can probably fudge a bit.
asiliveandbreathe
(8,203 posts)he would determine it was a good thing....
Ms. Toad
(34,069 posts)was not responsive to the question asked.
asiliveandbreathe
(8,203 posts)response - indeed trouble..All he had to do was say he would recuse himself..
.NOW - as you say, quite an odd response....