Sessions had contact with Russian envoy
- Thread starter Kev_Russell
- Start date
This explains why Trump was so moderated in the speech the other night -- they knew this story was coming out. Makes sense now. Given that it's well-known that Kislyak is a spy and spy recruiter, surely there is an audio recording of these conversations which will show up soonish.
Of course, this will be dismissed as "fake news" by the usual lot of knuckle-draggers here.
ROLL TIDE!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...205eda-feac-11e6-99b4-9e613afeb09f_story.html
When you and yours pony up some proof, other than gossip and hearsay, the knuckle draggers will listen.
PsyOps
Pixelated
I'm not rationalizing anything; I'm giving you the facts that are out there. Here, maybe a source more to your liking:
Sessions Met With Russian Ambassador but Didn’t Mislead Senate: Spokeswoman
If you choose the reject this as a lie, you are doing so based on your anti-Trump bias.
Here's the question, specific to the Trump campaign; not Sessions' meeting with Kislyak as a member of the Armed Services Committee:
[video=youtube;2BpgHcanjCQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BpgHcanjCQ[/video]
Just wondering if you bothered to listen to the question and the answer??? The obvious answer is no.
Mr. Sessions wasn't asked if HE directly had contact with the Russians. He was asked if anyone from the campaign had contact with the Russians.
His reply: He concedes that he has been called a surrogate for the campaign (he obviously was working for/with the campaign as he appeared on many campaign stages with Trump---so that part of your point is false.)
His very next sentence. [B]"I DID NOT HAVE COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE RUSSIANS"[/B]. If you can't hear English, the video you posted is transcribed in English right on the bottom of the screen...those words are at 1:17. "I did not have communications with the Russians."
He answered a question he wasn't asked and he lied when he didn't have to.
Later, in writing he was asked if he had contact with the Russians during the campaign and replied, in writing, "no".
So, on two occasions and in two different formats, Mr. Sessions lied to the Senate. On both occasions, there was absolutely no reason to lie. So why did he? Is he just a dumbass? Hard to make that argument...Sessions has been in the Senate for decades(?). He knows the drill. So why did he lie.
(The I was doing it as a member of the Senate, doesn't pass the sniff test because the question posed in your video wasn't directed at Mr. Sessions...it was directed at the campaign. Mr. Sessions chose to answer it in a personal fashion and he chose to lie. But you'll believe---because you are more concerned about party vs country--that service on the committee excuses Mr. Sessions from lying.)
PsyOps
Pixelated
You're right. The answer's no. I am obviously too stupid to understand what was transpiring. Thank you for blessing me with your superior wisdom and setting me straight.
Oh, and I didn't bother reading the rest of your post since I am obviously too stupid to understand any of it anyway.
Kev_Russell
New Member
Oh gosh. Sessions' spokeshole said it's all good and nothing is amiss. Now why didn't I bother to see what she had to say first?
You're awesome dude.
PsyOps
Pixelated
Thanks!
There will be an investigation and it will be determined that, if Sessions did indeed lie, there was no intent to deceive Congress so nothing further will happen. End of story. 
PsyOps
Pixelated
There will be an investigation and it will be determined that, if Sessions did indeed lie, there was no intent to deceive Congress so nothing further will happen. End of story.
Yup! Thank you Comey.
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
exactly, saying the truth would have been very easy, and easily understood considering the panel was a bunch of congressmen. Making a misleading statement about it only leads to questions
come on dude. you are srriously splitting hairs. If i ask you if anyone in your office had contact with the russians do you say no if you know that you did in an off duty capacity? I know that wouldn't work for people with a clearance. If a normal civil servant made a similarly misleading statement under oath they would be in pretty deep ####.
What misleading statement did Sessions make?...and in response to whom?
thurley42
HY;FR
Gotta love liberal turds.....they cry about war, even though their savior gave us 8 years of it......and then they cry wolf when we have normal conversations with another world power and former(ish) nuclear enemy....which is it douche rockets, no war, or no efforts to improve relations?
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
get your spin stick out
The actual tortured question:
Here is where you explain, in detail, how Sessions was officially affiliated with the Trump campaign as compared to his position on SASC.
And of course..preceding Franken's mess, there was this.
Fortunately, none of it matters and will be all blown over in a week.
Last edited:
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
bwhahahahaha
you mean other than his saying so himself under oath?
do you know what "anyone affilatted with the truimp campaign" means?
Link(s)? TIA.
PsyOps
Pixelated
That wasn't the question Session was asked. The exact question:
Franken: "If there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what would you do?"
Sessions: "Senator Franken, I'm not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate a time or two in that campaign, and I did not have communications with the Russians. And I am unable to comment."
CONTEXT! Franken is specifically asking about any communications with the Russians related to the Trump campaign. Sessions' communications with the Russians were while he was doing business as a member of the Armed Services Committee. I totally get how you are conflating the two, because you want there to be a relationship. But what Session did as a senator has nothing to do with the Trump campaign.