Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

asiliveandbreathe

(8,203 posts)
Mon Mar 6, 2017, 08:18 PM Mar 2017

Jeff 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 Franken’s 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 - ?????

16 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

randome

(34,845 posts)
2. What an attempt at obfuscation!
Mon Mar 6, 2017, 08:25 PM
Mar 2017

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)
4. That's correct - and now the issue is the question??? oh dear -
Mon Mar 6, 2017, 08:30 PM
Mar 2017

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)
3. You ask a good question
Mon Mar 6, 2017, 08:27 PM
Mar 2017

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)
8. Reading a comment at link - they suggest it is not under oath..
Mon Mar 6, 2017, 08:42 PM
Mar 2017

still searching - but the comments at link are very interesting..

ProudLib72

(17,984 posts)
15. Then the only thing this paper is good for
Mon Mar 6, 2017, 09:52 PM
Mar 2017

is rolling a big fat doobie and blowing the smoke in Sessions' face.

asiliveandbreathe

(8,203 posts)
16. By all means - however, see comment here #9 -
Mon Mar 6, 2017, 09:58 PM
Mar 2017

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)
5. Sessions volunteered that he'd never met with them. The question doesn't matter.
Mon Mar 6, 2017, 08:33 PM
Mar 2017

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)
6. Sessions is not real bright.
Mon Mar 6, 2017, 08:39 PM
Mar 2017

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)
7. He sold his soul...
Mon Mar 6, 2017, 08:42 PM
Mar 2017

so that he could play a puppet for a pathological liar and an unstable narcissist.

Princess Turandot

(4,787 posts)
9. Giving false information to Congress is a felony, *whether under oath or not*. There are 2 ...
Mon Mar 6, 2017, 08:43 PM
Mar 2017

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:

§ 1001. Statements or entries generally(a) Except as otherwise provided in this sec-tion, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdic-tion of the executive, legislative, or judicialbranch of the Government of the United States,knowingly and willfully— 1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by anytrick, scheme, or device a material fact; 2) makes any materially false, fictitious, orfraudulent statement or representation; or 3) makes or uses any false writing or docu-ment knowing the same to contain any mate-rially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statementor entry

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

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
12. This is the guy who says "sorry! The LAW is the LAW" re: putting millions of pot smokers in prison
Mon Mar 6, 2017, 08:49 PM
Mar 2017

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.

Ms. Toad

(34,069 posts)
10. That's quite an odd response, considering that the response that got him into trouble
Mon Mar 6, 2017, 08:44 PM
Mar 2017

was not responsive to the question asked.

“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 Franken’s question.

asiliveandbreathe

(8,203 posts)
13. He is still trying to prevent the need for recusal - his original
Mon Mar 6, 2017, 08:50 PM
Mar 2017

response - indeed trouble..All he had to do was say he would recuse himself..

.NOW - as you say, quite an odd response....

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Jeff Sessions - respond...