http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tr...6908L?il=0
<p style="margin-left:80px;font-size:1.7em;color:rgb(17,17,17);">
Then-U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions spoke twice last year with Russia's ambassador, encounters he did not disclose when asked during his confirmation hearing to become attorney general about possible contacts between Trump's campaign and Russian officials, the Washington Post reported on Wednesday, citing Justice Department officials.
<p style="margin-left:80px;font-size:1.7em;color:rgb(17,17,17);font-family:'knowledge-reg', helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">
One of the meetings was a private conversation between Sessions and Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak that took place in September in the senator's office, at the height of what U.S. intelligence officials say was a Russian cyber campaign to upend the U.S. presidential race, the Post reported.
Quote:http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tr...6908L?il=0
<p style="margin-left:80px;font-size:1.7em;color:rgb(17,17,17);">Then-U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions spoke twice last year with Russia's ambassador, encounters he did not disclose when asked during his confirmation hearing to become attorney general about possible contacts between Trump's campaign and Russian officials, the Washington Post reported on Wednesday, citing Justice Department officials.
<p style="margin-left:80px;font-size:1.7em;color:rgb(17,17,17);font-family:'knowledge-reg', helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">One of the meetings was a private conversation between Sessions and Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak that took place in September in the senator's office, at the height of what U.S. intelligence officials say was a Russian cyber campaign to upend the U.S. presidential race, the Post reported.
Um hes was a US senator. He can communicate with Russia in his official capacity. Non story. This is like saying Obama should have disclosed his meetings with the Russian Ambassador. Grasping for straws.
Corrected: He was part of the campaign at this point as an advisor (since Feb 2016). Even so the original point stands.
Quote:Um hes was a US senator. He can communicate with Russia in his official capacity. Non story. He wasn't even part of Trumps campaign other than endorsing at that point. This is like saying Obama should have disclosed his meetings with the Russian Ambassador. Grasping for straws.
He lied about his contacts during the confirmation hearings. He was directly asked if he made contacts and he said no. It is a story.
Quote:He lied about his contacts during the confirmation hearings. He was directly asked if he made contacts and he said no. It is a story.
He was asked about contacts between Trumps campaign and Russia. What does that have to do with him, a US Senator at the time, having a meeting with the Russian ambassador as a member of the Armed Services Committee? They are not the same thing.
“There was absolutely nothing misleading about his answer,” said Sarah Flores, a spokeswoman for Sessions. “He was asked during the hearing about communications between Russia and the Trump campaign — not about meetings he took as a senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee.”
Two different roles, although I agree that the answer could have been more inclusive, but its fairly defensible. Here is the actual exchange:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUbipBuuRY8
"During his January confirmation hearing for his appointment as Attorney General, Sessions was asked by Senator Al Franken what he planned to do if he found out members of the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia. “I’m not aware of any of those activities,” Sessions said."I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.”
This was clearly in the context of being in 'Trumps campaign' as is obvious in the video. Should he have added that he talked to the Russians as a member of the Armed Services Committee? Possibly, but that really wasn't the context of the question or the spirit. The implication of the article that he 'negotiated a deal' is not defensible based on evidence currently available.
The biggest piece of evidence they offer for this conclusion is the story of the 'private meeting.' Which is pure speculation based on an unnamed source from WaPo (a most liberal publication):
"The Washington Post said one of the meetings was a private conversation between Sessions and Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak that took place in the senator's office in September."
Obviously anything the WaPo said I will take with more than a grain of salt, especially when it comes to the opposition. And considering the Justice Departments previous actions I have no doubt its another former Obama era aid with an obvious axe to grind. Without something further and much more damning this is nothing but political grandstanding.
BTW 1 800 Russia tag? Made me laugh, but I have no clue who would look that up.
lol
The desperation is sad.
Wakes up every morning.......grasps at straws to throw shade at Trump.......runs to post on The Jungle. Quite comical. Boring and old already, but quite comical.
Hate will eat you alive son. Give it up.
Quote:Wakes up every morning.......grasps at straws to throw shade at Trump.......runs to post on The Jungle. Quite comical. Boring and old already, but quite comical.
Hate will eat you alive son. Give it up.
When your attorney general is lying under oath at his confirmation, that's hardly grasping at straws. Specially when we are talking about foreign involvement.
But I'm sure it's nothing. Just another day in prezident trump's Amerika.
"During his January confirmation hearing for his appointment as Attorney General, Sessions was asked by Senator Al Franken what he planned to do if he found out members of the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia.”
So not only does Sessions show this frantic grasp at straws from an increasingly desperate party as entirely and intentionally misleading, but the question posed from Franken proves the democrat mantra of Russian involvement is completely construed.
Quote:When your attorney general is lying under oath at his confirmation, that's hardly grasping at straws. Specially when we are talking about foreign involvement.
But I'm sure it's nothing. Just another day in prezident trump's Amerika.
Ah, childish sloganeering. Substantial.
Quote:He was asked about contacts between Trumps campaign and Russia. What does that have to do with him, a US Senator at the time, having a meeting with the Russian ambassador as a member of the Armed Services Committee? They are not the same thing.
“There was absolutely nothing misleading about his answer,” said Sarah Flores, a spokeswoman for Sessions. “He was asked during the hearing about communications between Russia and the Trump campaign — not about meetings he took as a senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee.”
Two different roles, although I agree that the answer could have been more inclusive, but its fairly defensible. Here is the actual exchange: <a class="bbc_url" href='https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUbipBuuRY8'>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUbipBuuRY8</a>
"During his January confirmation hearing for his appointment as Attorney General, Sessions was asked by Senator Al Franken what he planned to do if he found out members of the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia. “I’m not aware of any of those activities,” Sessions said."I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.”
This was clearly in the context of being in 'Trumps campaign' as is obvious in the video. Should he have added that he talked to the Russians as a member of the Armed Services Committee? Possibly, but that really wasn't the context of the question or the spirit. The implication of the article that he 'negotiated a deal' is not defensible based on evidence currently available.
The biggest piece of evidence they offer for this conclusion is the story of the 'private meeting.' Which is pure speculation based on an unnamed source from WaPo (a most liberal publication):
"The Washington Post said one of the meetings was a private conversation between Sessions and Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak that took place in the senator's office in September."
Obviously anything the WaPo said I will take with more than a grain of salt, especially when it comes to the opposition. And considering the Justice Departments previous actions I have no doubt its another former Obama era aid with an obvious axe to grind. Without something further and much more damning this is nothing but political grandstanding.
The WaPo isn't all that liberal to be quite honest.
I don't understand why you lie if you haven't done anything wrong.
What the heck is wrong with these politicians?
We are truly in Flatland in this section of the board. Does anyone want to take some bets on this Russian thing? I'm feeling lucky!
Quote:The WaPo isn't all that liberal to be quite honest
Maybe if you're coming at it from the alt left perspective you espouse. But, for mainstream America, it's tilted left.
Let me see if I have this straight. The people who say that the meeting of Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch was nefarious are saying that the meeting of Sessions and the Russian ambassador is strictly benign, nothing to see here.
Funny how it all depends on who you're for and who you're against.
Political opportunism at its best.
A lot of republicans are calling on Sessions to rescue himself.
Seems like Spicer needs to confiscate everybody's personal cell phone. He isn't good at covering this up at all.
Quote:#snowflake #triggered
#Russian #butthurt #comrade