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.

 

Trump Speech Writer Richard Burt Contradicts Testimony of AG Sessions

page: 2
16
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Also, was Burt a lobbyist at the time of his dinner with Sessions? If not, then there seems to be nothing to this story at all.




posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

OP TLDR



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 05:28 PM
link   
If it was a nefarious meeting that sessions lied about, just think about how stupid that makes this guy and sessions for that matter. It would be easy for anyone to show they'd had contact.

I just can't see how he lied about anything. I genuinely have my non-partisan hat on here and think Sessions either doesn't remember that guy was there or like I said earlier when he was asked about contact with a Russian or Russian agent, this guy was the furthest thing from his mind.



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 05:33 PM
link   
The O.P. reports on factual occurrences although I doubt Sessions knew about this guys Russian ties.



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


Wouldn't it be a bigger deal that Trump had a Russian lobbyist help write his speech?


That was actually the topic of the Politico piece I linked from last October ("lobbying for the Russian pipeline, Nord Stream II") and it is in fact something something that was discussed at the time.

If we start going down this road my friend, it'll never end. Americans lobbying our politicians on the behalf of foreign governments is something that neither you nor I are keen on.


If this info has been available (whihc apparently it has) and a big deal wasn't made out of it, why would Sessions having dinner with him now be a shocking revelation.


It's not they fact that they had dinner that is a shocking revelation. (I didn't characterize this as a "shocking revelation" either, label it a "bombshell" or anything of the sort — I called it "an interesting development.") In fact, it was actually first reported in the Politico article linked above that Burt had attended the two dinners in the Summer.

What is significant is that Sessions has now given a sworn testimony and these facts, which have just been again confirmed by Richard Burt, tend to contradict the answer Sessions gave to McCain. That's important in the greater scheme of things because this is one more example of Sessions either giving an answer that is inaccurate or omitting information when questioned about his contacts with Russians or agents of the Russian government, during the 2016 Donald Trump campaign.

Nothing more. Nobody is saying this is evidence of collusion despite multiple attempts at creating that straw man.


I find it entirely plausible that Sessions did not know he was a lobbyists for a company that was half owned at the time by russians.


That's fair but I disagree. Also from the Politco article:


In addition to helping shape Trump’s speech, Burt attended two dinners this summer hosted by Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, who had been named chairman of Trump’s national security committee. Burt was invited to discuss issues of national security and foreign policy, and wrote white papers for Sessions on the same subjects, according to Burt and another person with knowledge of the situation.


Let me ask you this. Do you think that Sessions was unaware of this Politico article from October? Even if the dinner meeting somehow otherwise slipped his mind, or maybe he didn't know anything about Burt's lobbying — despite inviting him there to discuss foreign policy nd comissioning two white papers from him — don't you think the fact that it was published might have helped bring all this to his attention such that it seems less likely that he gave McCain an honest answer?


Now meanwhile, how is that investigation going into Tony Podesta getting $170,000 from Russia to lobby for lifting sanctions? Oh thats right, media like The Guardian are only concerned wit people on the right having chance encounters in public with russians, not Hillarys top people lobbying for them.


How am I supposed to respond to that? Where did you come by that information? Fox News? Some other right-wing outlet? Are you going to lament their failure to report on Sessions providing false testimony again?

As I said, I'm not keen on the whole lobbying for foreign governments thing but it's legal. And before you open this can of worms, you might want to consider who Paul Manafort is and what he and his and Trump's mutual buddy Roger Stone have been doing since the 70's.



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: thunderfoot
a reply to: theantediluvian

OP TLDR


Awesome. Please keep posting about things you're too lazy or unconcerned with to read. That's how you make a real first rate contribution to the discussion.



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

U are so anti russian and you don't know russia would be the best ally you have coming up if there is large battles in the middle east. Why do you hate the Russian federations? Do you know about us and our desire for real peace, and not invasions of conquest in this world?



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: FauxMulder

At no point have *I* opined that the meeting was nefarious (and quite the contrary). Nowhere in anything I've linked is the meeting characterized as nefarious or in any way improper.

Which makes Session's response questionable. What I'm mulling over is if he's not reflexively denying things like this that would be otherwise innocous for a reason. That reason could be as simple as a matter of concern over the optics.

Also, take a look at what I just mentioned to Grambler. In October, Politico reported about the two dinner meetings:


In addition to helping shape Trump’s speech, Burt attended two dinners this summer hosted by Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, who had been named chairman of Trump’s national security committee. Burt was invited to discuss issues of national security and foreign policy, and wrote white papers for Sessions on the same subjects, according to Burt and another person with knowledge of the situation.


It seems unlikely that Sessions didn't know about Burt's lobbying to me. It also seems even less likely that Sessions would forget these dinner meetings he set up occurred and that Burt was in attendance, particularly since all of this was reported in October in Politico.

When I look at the pieces, I get the feeling that Session wasn't being exactly honest. I'm still mulling over why. Maybe a foreign power will hack and release his emails and we'll get some more definitive answers?



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian
Well I came by that info about Podesta on a thread me and you discussed it on.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

I am not claiming you are saying this is collusion, I understand that. But as we both no and lament, washington critters go in and out of the lobbying business all of the time.

From my reading of the article in the OP, it does not seem as if Burt was a lobbyist at the time of his dinner with Sessions. For sessions to have to dredge up if he ever had dinner with anyone who ever lobbied for any company owned partly by russians would seem to be very difficult.

For example, had sessions been at a dinner with Podesta, he would have had to tell McCain "Well I think Tony Podesta got paid by russians, and he was at an event I was at, so thats one." and so one. It just seems unreasonable. This is why Sessions had to keep saying "Not to my recollection" because the whole hearing was a sham that was designed to be a gotcha moment to get sessions.

These people are not concerned with the greater truth, which is was sessions involved in any shay dealings. Nope, they are just hoping that they could get him because he forgot to mention any little meeting with anyone that ever had any connections to Russians.

Meanwhile, we know for an absolute FACT that the Podesta group lobbyed on behalf of Russia to get sanctions removed, and not on person on the left seems to give two hoots about that (not including you I mean media and politicians).

If we are so concerned with Russian collusion, why isn't that being investigated?



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Oh and in response to the Politico article, what seems more plausible.

That sessions either didn't know burt was a russian lobbyist or legitimately forgot he had dinner with him twice,

or

Sessions knew this guy was a russsian lobbyist, and instead of just admitting he had a public dinner with him twice in his testimony, he chose to lie about it, knowing full well that politico wrote an article about this in octovber, but just hop[ing everyone, including the people at poilitico, would have forgotten about it.

It just seems ridiculous to suggest he was lying about this.



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 06:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: rickymouse

No word about who set it up. As I said to FM, I don't think this is anyway related to some sort of collusion. I'm just wondering why Session's answer was inaccurate and what implications there are.

As for the make up of the guests, according to Burt, they were, "groups of former Republican foreign policy officials." There's no indication of who composed the guest list, only that the dinners were hosted by Sessions so I would assume that at the very least, he had input and approved his guest list.

Reportedly, it was Manafort who brought in Burt for the Mayflower speech. I wonder if Manafort was in attendance? Manafort is super shady. It's only speculation on my part but if anyone was actually coordinating with Russians from the Trump campaign, Manafort is top of my list.

He spent more than a decade working in Ukraine for Putin's lapdop. He is an admitted influence peddler. He's been caught participating in scams to generate propaganda for foreign governments. According to his own daughter's text messages — among a release of messages he confirmed — the money her father made was "blood money." He's an unsavory character. Is he a traitor? I can't say but he's a lot of other criminal things, some of them by his own admission.


I am sure that Manafort is only one of many people in Washington DC that is a person with an agenda. I think there are more people paid by special interests in Washington than anywhere else in the world. Like I said before,we should build a water tight prison wall around the capital to lock all those deceivers in. If the USA made deception illegal, half the people in Washington would be in jail.



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: thunderfoot

I'm not anti-Russian at all. I have absolutely no issue with Russian people and the Russians I have encountered in my life have all been great people. That's got nothing to do with either of our governments, Putin's agenda or election meddling.



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

You don't understand there has been election meddling forever, why you all make issue of it now? Or are you aware there has always been meddling and it just was not issue before? Obama already has promised that there was no russian influence why does this charity work continue to make trump look bad only?



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

This heading in the Guardian article is pure casuistry:


Richard Burt contradicts Jeff Sessions’ testimony that he didn’t believe he had contacts with lobbyists working for Russian interests during Trump’s campaign


For one, the only way to contradict someone who said "I don't believe so" is to prove that he did in fact believe so. That's what a contradiction is.

In other words, Burt might have contradicted Sessions' testimony had he said Sessions knew about his Russian lobbying activities, but as Burt mentioned, he didn't know whether that was the case. The Guardian implying that Sessions could be lying because that info is public is dangerous speculation, given its effect on dupes. But saying Sessions' testimony was contradicted is utterly false on its face, a fabrication, and fake news.
edit on 15-6-2017 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Good god, these threads are getting more hilarious by the day.

We're now at the stage where if someone is at a party/dinner you are at that has any association to Russia then it's a problem. /facepalm.

Note to OP... when someone says "I don't believe so" to a question "During that 2016 campaign season, did you have any contacts with any representative, including any American lobbyist or agent of any Russian company within or outside your capacity as a member of congress or a member of the armed services committee?" there is no contradiction.

What's next - "Sessions was on same street as a Russian".. or "Bombshell : Sessions was in Washington at the same time as a Russian - did they meet? We need to know!"

Sessions killed any attacks on him stone dead... but beat the dead horse all you like. It seems that instead of actually recovering from this strange psychosis, anti-Trumpers are actually getting worse.

I would have thought the embarrassment over the propaganda because Sessions was in a crowded room with a Russian would be enough, but it goes on.

edit on 15/6/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

Manafort's resume puts most of them to shame though. Even among the dirty DC insiders, he's a real stand out. He spent a decade as an aide to Viktor Yanukovych and continued to work for his successor at the Party of Regions after Yanukovych was deposed and whisked off to Russia by Putin.

In fact, there's very good reason to believe that Manafort continued his work in Ukraine even as he was part of Trump's campaign.

My own theory has long been that a lot of Trump's positions on Russia, Ukraine, etc were heavily influenced by advisors that were brought in by the likes of Manafort. If Manafort was taking direction from Russia or somehow coordinating with Russia, I think we can all agree that Manafort should be in jail.

I would hope that President Trump would feel the same way. I think if Trump would just take a hand's off approach and let the investigators do their thing, he could have saved himself from continously being drug back into this. I'm serious. He says all this s# in public about hoaxes and witch hunts but then behind the scenes, he's telling Comey if somebody is involved he wants to know?

Why not tell the American people that if somebody — some "satellite" in his orbit — was involved, he wants to know the truth more than anyone and just let it happen? I've said before, particularly recently, Trump has had ample opportunity to turn this thing around. All he's got to do is stop trying to derail it.



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian


At no point have *I* opined that the meeting was nefarious


I know, I wasn't trying to imply you did. Just that if there was something nefarious with this guy, sessions, Russia etc. it would be extremely stupid for this guy to to contradict what sessions said.


It seems unlikely that Sessions didn't know about Burt's lobbying to me


I agree. After all, he was brought on for foreign policy and is well know around Washington.

I think the most likely explanation is that Sessions was at a hearing where the main goal and narrative has been Russian collusion, he is asked if he had a meeting with a Russian or Russian agent and said no. In this context and in his mind he was thinking about has he ever had a meeting not known to the public, has he had correspondence with anyone that would be suspect. In his mind no he hasn't.

I think Burt was actually there for foreign policy advice and speech writing because that is what he is known for.

From the OP

For those unfamiliar, Richard Burt is a Reagan-era diplomat, who held the post as US Ambassador to Germany from 1985 to 1989. He is also very well known for having been the chief negotiator of the START I Treaty ( Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) between the US and Russia. His counsel is frequently sought by politicians on matters of foreign policy


It seems to me it's totally more likely this is why he was around and with there being no Russia business going on, Sessions wasn't even thinking about this guy when the question was asked.



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

How about you put up or shut up? There is no evidence of ANY collusion... Manafort, Paige, Sessions, or anyone else.
For goodness sake, please post some evidence instead of the same baseless innuendo day after day.



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Man, I loathe Sessions, but this seems like a stretch unless Sessions actively engaged with Russian subjects with Richard Burt. Everyone has ties to everything in national government.

I still say Sessions lied to / mislead Congress for his job app, and should be removed.



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
Also, was Burt a lobbyist at the time of his dinner with Sessions? If not, then there seems to be nothing to this story at all.


Yes, he was.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join