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

I'm not here to discuss what if's that somehow make your false perception justified.

 

Jeff Sessions was an active member of the Trump campaign for months. What about the month of September 2016 would lead you to believe that a conversation between Sessions and the Russian ambassador would not include a discussion of the election set to take place two months later?

 

Really what part did you play in the campaign?

Sessions, yes he was an adviser and in that context did not speak with the Russians.

What lie? As a surrogate for the campaign he did not talk to the Russians. You got proof otherwise present it.

 

Only if correctly means lying under oath.

But he is a Republican, so that makes it correct, right?

Exhibit AE.

 

What was being discussed prior to Franken asking the question?

 

Oh, please.

What happened here is that this slip shod administration purposefully chose NOT carry out the vetting that normally takes place.

And, now Sessions needs to go.

This is what you get when the person at the top has no respect for the office or for the people he is supposed to be serving.

 

The what if game is better than the "even though he didn't say it here's what he meant," game by adding words to his quote that he never said, all so you can claim it wasn't a lie. Thanks for playing.

 

Or at least call her on her hypocrisy and deceit.

 

The specific questions were about whether he discussed the campaign. He did not lie

 

There's the flat out lie. He did have communications with the Russians.

Thanks.

 

yes he did. deny it, it is on record. rwers are acting like sgt shultz more and more

 

Context doesn't seem to matter to some people.

 

Do you think that Lynch should have recused herself? Do you believe that the investigation into Hillary Clinton was tainted by Lynch's involvement?

In Sessions meets with a Russian official in a plane in secret during an active FBI investigation then I won't just demand he recuse himself, I will demand his firing.

 

What "rest of the question" are you talking about?

 

No...........the facts and transcripts, at least the honest postings of them, show he was correct in his answer.

 

deny as much as you want, i know rwers have become experts at it

 

While the Trumpologists are busy playing fast and loose with good grammar and sentence structure rules to make words mean what they don't mean.... Republicans are admitting that this is very murky territory.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/02/...ons-russia-trump-investigation-democrats.html

 

Police: "Do you have any evidence of Jim, Steve or Alice going into the convenience store at anytime in the month of September?"

Answer: "No I do not know anything about that."

Police: "Do you swear that is true?"

Answer: "Yes."

Police: "We got you! You made a false statement to the police. We can prove that YOU were in the convenience store in September!"

Answer: "You did not ask me if I was in the convenience store. You asked about those other 3 people."

Police: "Yeah, but you should have known that is what we meant to ask so you lied by not answering what we meant to ask, even though we didn't. We got you!"

THAT is the claim that Sessions lied.

 

rw denial at this point is at biblical levels

 

\

No, that is not the end of story.

What he was asked and answered is a matter of the record, not how you and other conservatives try to mischaracterize it.

SEN. AL FRANKEN: "If there was any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this (2016) campaign, what would you do?," the Minnesota Democrat asked.

SESSIONS: "I'm not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/02/politics/russia-jeff-sessions-confirmation-hearing/

Sessions in fact did have communications with the Russians. Flat out lie. End of story.

 

And there you go leaving out the context of the exchange again.

 

That would be supposing that he and the administration have integrity.

 

The question asked was if he talked to Russians about the campaign. He didn't talk to the Russians about the fake news about whores urinating on a bed. The genius Franken DID NOT ask if Sessions talked to a Russian in his life, or during the campaign. Franken asked about the fake news story.......................

 

Exactly what is it about the statement "I did not have communications with the Russians" that you claim needs contact to be clear?

Help me understand the RW mindset.

- - - Updated - - -

I read it, many times. Don't dodge the question. "What context should I glean from the rest of the Franken's question?"

 

Isn't it what the question implied considering what was being discussed prior to the question? I can see how he might have thought that was what the question meant.