Sessions met with Russian envoy twice last year, encounters he later did not disclose

I post the entire conversation. You post parts of it. Who is more honest?

 

I would say myslef, since I am not making stupid (*)(*)(*)(*) up.to defined the (*)(*)(*)(*)wit that is Trump.

 

It's today's poofy, powerless Dems getting in a huff about nothing. Besides, the Bulldog is backing Sessions so they can go back in the corner and weep:

White House defends Sessions as Dems seek resignation over Russia revelation:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/02/white-house-defends-sessions-as-dems-seek-resignation-over-russia-revelation.html

 

Lawyers do not speak in generalities and (should be) well aware not to make vague statements. If he meant, "I did not have contact with the Russians outside my capacity as a Senator," why didn't he say that? Are you claiming he is not a competent lawyer? Are you saying he's stupid? Are you saying it was a rookie mistake? If he had answered that way, I guarantee Franken would have had more questions. Sessions was quite clear - he didn't have contact with the Russians. You don't get to add words he didn't say to make his statement sound truthful.

No matter how much you try to spin this, a lie is a lie. We don't really need our AG leaving out critical words like that in a statement under oath.

 

I see your signature line is about Roe v. Wade. I would love to engage you on that topic (in a different thread), specifically on the fact that Roe v. Wade is the single most important reason why crime dropped dramatically from its high of the late 1980s.

 

I understand your viewpoint.

It's a Republican who lied under oath. Therefore it's silly.

Exhibit U.

 

No, it seems like a pointless effort at distracting to something completely irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

I will note that both the first and the third statements are examples of perjury though. So there's that.

 

An interesting line of argument on your part since the assertion by Democrats is that he met with the Russian ambassador as part of the Trump campaign. If the only bullet in the Democrat gun hinges on a matter of semantics then it is time for you guys to find a new battlefield.

 

"I didn't have sex with that woman" is nothing more than a personal issue. . .the woman was consenting, so it has NO impact on the US government or its people

"You can keep your doctor," is nothing more than a short cut. . .that is, IF YOUR INSURER doesn't sell you out, and IF YOUR EMPLOYER doesn't change insurer. . .you will be able to keep your doctor. 10 years prior to ACA, we had to change our doctors twice in 4 years. . .simply because our employer decided to switch healthcare insurer, and the new insurer didn't have a contract with the same doctors! NOTHING to do with ACA. . .so no impact on government or people

"I didn't meet with the Russian as part of the campaign," if proven false, has a huge impact on the elections, and thus on the people and the whole government going forward. In addition, if those statements (as in Sessions' case) were made under oath, and proven false (again, as in Sessions' case) they are an obvious perjury. . .which would be even more grave if it is done by the same person who is supposed to protect our laws!

 

Not to worry. Trump will soon do something to get you really, really top-heavy.

 

I'll ask again who lied? You have zero evidence neither does Franken. So your argument falls flat, wait for the evidence, the moral thing to do, don't you think?

 

Getting emotional wont change the reality of what Session said. He was clear as a surrogate for Trump he did not talk to the Russians. He did as a Senator and you have no text whatsoever that he is lying.

 

You made the factual statement that "Session's meetings were not as a Trump surrogate as part of the 2016 campaign", and it is "rich" that I asked you to prove your own claim.

Now that's rich.

That's not my job at all. I've never claimed that Sessions met with the Russians and discussed the 2016 campaign. You're making stuff up. I have no idea what they discussed.

But I do know it was a lie when Sessions stated I did not have communications with the Russians.

I never denied that he was a Senator and ASC member. You're making stuff up.

But I do know he lied when he said "I did not have communications with the Russians"

- - - Updated - - -

Sessions was crystal clear. "I did not have communications with the Russians"

Flat out lie, under oath. But so what, he's a Republican, right?

Exhibit V.

 

Here is something about which I am curious: What is it about the month of September 2016 that would lead you to believe that a meeting between Sessions and the Russian ambassador would not involve a discussion of the election that would take place two months later?

 

In other words, he did not have communications with the Russians as a surrogate (as he was called at a time or two in that campaign).

 

What lame arguments. Bah it's nothing. Again.

 

If you prefer the word, "misled," then you can use that one.

 

Sessions lied. How in your view are statements on the record and admissions by the Administration "zero evidence" in your world?

 

Post status: Fail

Nope, none of that is clear, so why make up things to defend the stupidity of Trumpco?

 

I suppose if you want to be that insular, you must have an amazing tolerance for sand in your ear canals... Somehow, nuance, context, the meaning of common words like "and" are unknowable now in progressive circles??

 

It's a Republican lying under oath after all. Nothing. We're used to it.

Exhibit W.

 

Dems = Sessions should resign.

Trump's Legions = Nobody cares (But Obama/But Clinton/Etc.)

We seem to have reached an impasse.

 

Obviously the White House will defend Sessions! They are up to their neck in the same treacherous lies! The house of cards is beginning to crumble!

 

This is really interesting to me. It seems like Trump defenders are really starting to harp on the "called a surrogate once or twice" line as if that is proof that Sessions was ACTUALLY just a surrogate once or twice during the campaign. Do you really believe that Sessions was not closely associated with the Trump campaign?

 

I understand the word "and" fine and have no sand in my ears.

Did you have some point you are trying to make?