It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jeff Sessions, Trumps new AG and Former Campaign Advisor, lied about his Russian contacts

page: 12
63
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

BS she recused herself. Lynch said she'd accept the recommendation of the FBI. She did not recuse herself.

This was the same woman who had to plead the 5th when questioned about sending ransom money to Iran.

I don't like Sessions at all and think he was a terrible pick, but don't try to pretend Lynch was some kind of hero.




posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Sillyolme

unless they have a fisa warrant on sessions the info from sessions is protected as i posted

unless there is a fisa warrant on sessions

either it is illegal or obamas admin directed our ic to spy on an opposing political party

problem?



And they just ignore a link i posted explaining why sessions didnt do anything wrong. Funny that.


He lied.

Period!


Prove it. If you cant recall its not lying. Read the entire Peice. LAter on down he explains EXACTLY what session s meant,but sure ignore it due to your bias.



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 11:46 AM
link   
He is done..by the end of the day?



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Indigo5

so the un named sources are now the doj

wow you really have to show me how those dots connected

is that obamas doj or trumps?


I am still trying to figure out where the original info. came from, but I read DOJ Officials..

No one has disputed the facts we know though.

Here is the first WaPo article that opened the can of worms


Then-Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) spoke twice last year with Russia’s ambassador to the United States, Justice Department officials said

LINK

Make of that what you will...
edit on 2-3-2017 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

That is interesting. However, if there was an active investigation into, say, a certain group of American's and whether or not they had contact with Russian diplomats or other governmental personnel or known "watch list" individuals, wouldn't they be able to subpoena that information, or have it released as part of that investigation?

I'm curious. It seems that it would be a no-brainer, but hey, that's just me...




posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 11:49 AM
link   
This is funny. Getting in trouble for a past job where in said job you were to talk with diplomats. Sessions also met with 19 other diplomants too that year. Isnt there a law against holding past actions against current ones?



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5


No one has disputed the facts we know though.

facts do not come from un named sources
sessions has dispured what has been reported



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

I've said it earlier in this thread that Sessions won't be charged with perjury. The details are just to vague to make such charges stick. That said, those same vagaries mean it's imperative that Sessions at the very least recuse himself from any investigation involving Russia.

Whether or not we also see a resignation is up in the air. Trump may be regretting his pick after seeing how even the Republicans don't support a crack down on states that have legalised marijuana. This would give him a convenient excuse to get rid of him.



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The Democrat party has been decimated. The media is the opposition. It's all the left has at this point and they are going to throw out any BS they can for the next eight years.



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Sillyolme

unless they have a fisa warrant on sessions the info from sessions is protected as i posted

unless there is a fisa warrant on sessions

either it is illegal or obamas admin directed our ic to spy on an opposing political party

problem?



And they just ignore a link i posted explaining why sessions didnt do anything wrong. Funny that.


He lied.

Period!


Prove it. If you cant recall its not lying. Read the entire Peice. LAter on down he explains EXACTLY what session s meant,but sure ignore it due to your bias.


"Cant Recall" was not his testimony under oath..

He denied any contact both verbally under oath and in written form to the confirmation committee..

“I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.”



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: shooterbrody

That is interesting. However, if there was an active investigation into, say, a certain group of American's and whether or not they had contact with Russian diplomats or other governmental personnel or known "watch list" individuals, wouldn't they be able to subpoena that information, or have it released as part of that investigation?

I'm curious. It seems that it would be a no-brainer, but hey, that's just me...


info/data from american citizens is protected
thus the need for the fisa warrant



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Sillyolme

unless they have a fisa warrant on sessions the info from sessions is protected as i posted

unless there is a fisa warrant on sessions

either it is illegal or obamas admin directed our ic to spy on an opposing political party

problem?



And they just ignore a link i posted explaining why sessions didnt do anything wrong. Funny that.


He lied.

Period!


Prove it. If you cant recall its not lying. Read the entire Peice. LAter on down he explains EXACTLY what session s meant,but sure ignore it due to your bias.


"Cant Recall" was not his testimony under oath..

He denied any contact both verbally under oath and in written form to the confirmation committee..

“I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.”




Read the article I posted. It explains what sessions meant. Its obvious you didnt read it from your comments.

Here is the key exchange: Franken asked about “a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.” Sessions answered: “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 Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it.” Anyone reading the actual exchange can see Sessions was referring to no communications “as a surrogate” just as the question’s very long pre-amble specifically referenced the focus of the question to that subject matter. Nothing about Sessions’ answer was false, nor could it be construed to be materially false or willfully false, or even false at all.

(NOTICE HE SAID A ON GOING EXCHANGE WHILE THE CAMPAIGN WAS GOING ON NOT BEFORE WHILE HE WAS ON THAT COMMITTEE)

(To which Sessions answered as he did above. )

Notably, Senator Franken chose not to ask Sessions about his contacts with Russian officials over the years in his duties as a Senator on the Armed Services Committee. Sessions’ first meeting of the Russian ambassador was in public, and likely known to Franken and others. Franken could not have interpreted Sessions’ answer as anything but an answer to the question asked about campaign contacts with Russian government officials, which no evidence supports ever occurring. Indeed, given what Franken knew, one might fairly ask a different question: why did Franken avoid that specific question? Was it because he’s a lousy Senator, like he was a mediocre comedian? Maybe. Or Maybe it’s because Franken knew the answer would undermine Franken’s argument? Or maybe it was because Franken was planning on mis-using the answer to attack Sessions later?

WHy didnt Franken ask about his previous job? Most likely to pull this crap like he is right now through his party leader.
edit on 17000000pppm by yuppa because: editing facts



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Indigo5


No one has disputed the facts we know though.

facts do not come from un named sources
sessions has dispured what has been reported


I had to look up dispured to confirm it was a typo


Sessions is now acknowledging some communications with Kislyak...and GOP are calling for him to clarify testimony and recuse himself.

No one has reported the content of those conversations with the Russian Ambassador yet...It would be great if Sessions could go on record and fill in that blank.

He first said that he did not recollect..
Then he said it was Senate Business as a member of the Armed Services Committee (which makes no sense to the rest of the Armed Services Committee)

Then some source in the WH said they talked about the election, but only in passing..

Let's clear it up...Sessions needs to go under oath and amend his testimony to the Senate.



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Sillyolme

unless they have a fisa warrant on sessions the info from sessions is protected as i posted

unless there is a fisa warrant on sessions

either it is illegal or obamas admin directed our ic to spy on an opposing political party

problem?



And they just ignore a link i posted explaining why sessions didnt do anything wrong. Funny that.


He lied.

Period!


Prove it. If you cant recall its not lying. Read the entire Peice. LAter on down he explains EXACTLY what session s meant,but sure ignore it due to your bias.


"Cant Recall" was not his testimony under oath..

He denied any contact both verbally under oath and in written form to the confirmation committee..

“I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.”




Read the article I posted. It explains what sessions meant. Its obvious you didnt read it from your comments.


Anyone can "explain what they meant" when the facts dispute what they testified to.

Spin after getting caught in a lie does not change the original lie.



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Was that before or after they were trying to stop his confirmation?


Exactly. He didn't become a racist until he became Democrat opposition.


BS. Cite the "award" you're claiming.

Jeff Sessions (and racist is not one of the words I like to use) is a racist. Everything he's demonstrated over the course of his career suggests it.

Actions speak louder than words.



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: Indigo5

BS she recused herself. Lynch said she'd accept the recommendation of the FBI. She did not recuse herself.



The investigation was complete and a decision was being made at that time..

Recusing herself from the actual decision to prosecute or not was the only thing left to recuse herself from.


Either way....Sessions has yet to offer to recuse himself from either ongoing investigation or the recommendation that will follow.



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
This is funny. Getting in trouble for a past job where in said job you were to talk with diplomats. Sessions also met with 19 other diplomants too that year. Isnt there a law against holding past actions against current ones?


There was prior knowledge of him meeting with those other 19 diplomats and he didn't deny having contact with them under oath.



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Krazysh0t




I just don't see any credibility to the angle you are pursuing.

So where did the info about the alleged meeting with the russian ambassador come from?

I already answered that question. The Justice Department.



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: PistolPete

originally posted by: yuppa
This is funny. Getting in trouble for a past job where in said job you were to talk with diplomats. Sessions also met with 19 other diplomants too that year. Isnt there a law against holding past actions against current ones?


There was prior knowledge of him meeting with those other 19 diplomats and he didn't deny having contact with them under oath.


No because Franken never asked about his past Meetings.



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Sillyolme

unless they have a fisa warrant on sessions the info from sessions is protected as i posted

unless there is a fisa warrant on sessions

either it is illegal or obamas admin directed our ic to spy on an opposing political party

problem?



And they just ignore a link i posted explaining why sessions didnt do anything wrong. Funny that.


He lied.

Period!


Prove it. If you cant recall its not lying. Read the entire Peice. LAter on down he explains EXACTLY what session s meant,but sure ignore it due to your bias.


"Cant Recall" was not his testimony under oath..

He denied any contact both verbally under oath and in written form to the confirmation committee..

“I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.”




Read the article I posted. It explains what sessions meant. Its obvious you didnt read it from your comments.


Anyone can "explain what they meant" when the facts dispute what they testified to.

Spin after getting caught in a lie does not change the original lie.


Cop out .



new topics

top topics



 
63
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join