Attorney General casually perjures himself

[homersapien 11,370]

7 minutes ago, WDavE said:

Okay! Try this....

 

Dec 13th 2016

Then President Obama emphatically denounced the conspiracy theory that the Russians tampered with the election. 

Yet, here we are in early March listening to Lib's still spouting the same garbage.

A false statement does not get any truer no matter how many times it gets repeated. But lemmings will be lemmings.

I think you are confused.

Obama was actually referring to the Russians hacking the vote tabulation which is impossible in most cases since even computerized voting is not connected to the internet.

Russian hacking into DNC computers and using the information against Hillary is a completely different subject.

 

[Grumps 3,704]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

I think you are confused.

Obama was actually referring to the Russians hacking the vote tabulation which is impossible in most cases since even computerized voting is not connected to the internet.

Russian hacking into DNC computers and using the information against Hillary is a completely different subject.

 

So now you are admitting that the Russians didn't hack the election! HAHAHAHAHAHA!

[AUDub 11,147]

5 minutes ago, Grumps said:

So now you are admitting that the Russians didn't hack the election! HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Are you trolling? 

[homersapien 11,370]

17 minutes ago, Grumps said:

So now you are admitting that the Russians didn't hack the election! HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Excuse me? 

The Russians apparently hacked the DNC computers and information harming the Clintion campaign was released.

My understanding is that Obama was referring to Russia trying to manipulate the vote count.

I suppose that either could be generally described as "hacking the election" but they certainly aren't the same thing. 

 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

one thing for sure after 4 pages of posts....the title of the OP is not accurate/proven.

[AURaptor 1,122]

at the end of the day, Hillary lost, Trump won.

 

Nothing you can say, do , or fabricate can change that fact. 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

8 hours ago, homersapien said:

It's not "incoherent", it's a debatable question.

He may not be technically guilty of perjury, but it's very suspicious he didn't volunteer information on these meetings if they were innocent.  

And especially after the Flynn incident, he could have volunteered more information or clarified his answer.   Why didn't he do so? 

It is incoherent and partisan to entertain perjury charges and ask Sessions to resign because Sessions answered the questioned the way Franken specifically asked. The question asked was about communications between Russia and the Trump campaign, not about any meetings in any other capacity.

Sessions said at the hearing:  

Quote

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

 

His 'meetings' with the Russian Ambassador weren't about the Trump campaign or election. Both 'meetings' were done with Sessions as as Chairman of the Armed Services Committee. The 1st 'meeting' was at the "Global Partners in Diplomacy" conference in July. It was sponsored in part by the State Department. It wasn't even really a 'meeting', it was more an encounter and was very brief. A few ambassadors, which included the Russian Ambassador, came over to thank Sessions for speaking as he was leaving the stage.

The 2nd 'meeting' in Sessions Senate office was again as Chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Sessions had 30 meetings with ambassadors in 2016, which included the Russian Ambassador in September.

[LakeBum 187]

On 3/2/2017 at 10:15 AM, homersapien said:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/01/politics/jeff-sessions-russian-ambassador-meetings/

"In his confirmation hearing to become attorney general, Sessions was asked about Russia and he responded at the time that he "did not have communications with the Russians."

 

All he had to do is issue a correction after his hearing admitting he had these conversations.  He couldn't possibly have forgotten he had them after what happened to Flynn for the same thing.

He needs to go.

His quote was "I never met with any Russian officials to discuss issues of the campaign," he said in a statement. "I have no idea what this allegation is about. It is false."  I have read nothing that can dispute that statement. How can someone prove what one's intentions are?  A lot of people trying to derail the country.  Nothing new, been going on for decades by the party out of favor whether D or R.

 

[homersapien 11,370]

9 hours ago, LakeBum said:

His quote was "I never met with any Russian officials to discuss issues of the campaign," he said in a statement. "I have no idea what this allegation is about. It is false."  I have read nothing that can dispute that statement. How can someone prove what one's intentions are?  A lot of people trying to derail the country.  Nothing new, been going on for decades by the party out of favor whether D or R.

 

That's wrong.

What he said during the hearing has been quoted several times in this thread.

 

[AURaptor 1,122]

54 minutes ago, homersapien said:

That's wrong.

What he said during the hearing has been quoted several times in this thread.

 

Actually, it's right. 

[homersapien 11,370]

16 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

one thing for sure after 4 pages of posts....the title of the OP is not accurate/proven.

The charge of perjury is not proven but the accuracy of the evidence is self-evident.

 

[homersapien 11,370]

2 hours ago, AURaptor said:

Actually, it's right. 

OK, Raptor you are right.

The Jan.10 transcript I posted on the first page is fake.  It's nothing but a lying account created by the liberal media to distort the real truth.

I'm clueless again. 

[AUFAN78 3,894]

Did Attorney General Sessions Lie?

No, It’s a claim, which depends on taking one answer out of context. 

 

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.

 

[Cardin Drake 1,826]

Quote

 There's nothing more to be found.  

Well, other than the 33,000 emails she deleted....

[WDavE 332]

On 3/4/2017 at 0:16 PM, homersapien said:

I think you are confused.

Obama was actually referring to the Russians hacking the vote tabulation which is impossible in most cases since even computerized voting is not connected to the internet.

Russian hacking into DNC computers and using the information against Hillary is a completely different subject.

 

Are the Liberals not still spouting daily that the elections were hacked? It's like the standard issued statement.

Hacked implies that the result was tampered with. The only actual event was the DMC was hacked and emails detailing the election being tampered internally by factions in the Democratic party and Mr. Podesta.

 

By the way, the DMC was told they were being hacked by the FBI and ignored it.The RNC did not!

[homersapien 11,370]

1 hour ago, WDavE said:

Are the Liberals not still spouting daily that the elections were hacked? It's like the standard issued statement.

Hacked implies that the result was tampered with. The only actual event was the DMC was hacked and emails detailing the election being tampered internally by factions in the Democratic party and Mr. Podesta.

 

By the way, the DMC was told they were being hacked by the FBI and ignored it.The RNC did not!

No one has claimed the results were tampered with.

The claim is the Russians hacked the DNC computers and released information damaging the democratic candidate.

In most peoples minds, the "election" constitutes a lot more than the simple tabulation of votes.  It encompasses the election campaigns as well. 

But if you want to make a huge distinction about Democrats using the phrase "hacking the election" to discredit the factual claim of hacking the DNC computers, knock yourself out.  But it's pure sophistry.

 

[Grumps 3,704]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

No one has claimed the results were tampered with.

The claim is the Russians hacked the DNC computers and released information damaging the democratic candidate.

In most peoples minds, the "election" constitutes a lot more than the simple tabulation of votes.  It encompasses the election campaigns as well. 

But if you want to make a huge distinction about Democrats using the phrase "hacking the election" to discredit the factual claim of hacking the DNC computers, knock yourself out.  But it's pure sophistry.

 

I think that the term "hacking the election" was a deliberate phrase by the left wing media to imply that Russian had a greater involvement in the election than they actually had. I don't think that the right disputes that the DNC computers were hacked. I agree with you that ridiculing you for now admitting that the election was not hacked is a way to distract from other issues.

[homersapien 11,370]

On 3/4/2017 at 7:36 PM, AURaptor said:

at the end of the day, Hillary lost, Trump won.

 

Nothing you can say, do , or fabricate can change that fact. 

The first sentence is Correct.  Totally irrelevant, but correct.

The second sentence is wrong.  Continuing to focusing on examples of Trumps incompetence and unfitness for office may have the effect of getting him removed from office.  That would certainly "change that fact" for the better. 

[homersapien 11,370]

1 hour ago, Grumps said:

I think that the term "hacking the election" was a deliberate phrase by the left wing media to imply that Russian had a greater involvement in the election than they actually had. I don't think that the right disputes that the DNC computers were hacked. I agree with you that ridiculing you for now admitting that the election was not hacked is a way to distract from other issues.

I think you are totally mistaken.   

The actions the Russians did take by hacking into the DNC computers and releasing their findings are more than enough to justify the outrage of a hostile foreign power interferring in our election.

Your focusing on an arbitrary meaning of "hacking the election" and using that to dismiss what was actually done is an exercise in sophistry that reflects your willful partisan delusion to deny the facts.

Of course, any possible role the Trump administration may have had in the Russian interference is totally speculative at this point.  But considering the amount of circumstancial evidence, that you simply dismiss that possibility is partisan denial.

It is also pure speculation to suggest it had a deciding effect on the outcome of the election, but considering how close it was, that's certainly possible as well.  Unfortunately, we'll never know for sure.

Finally I am not "admitting" the election was not hacked.  That's more sophistry. Frankly it's disengenuous and silly.

I am asserting that what Obama was referring to when he said the "election wasn't hacked" was the tabulation of votes.

But using a more expansive definition of "election", I accept the phrase "hacking the election" to be totally appropriate when applied to what the Russians did. It's a simple and accurate way to describe the problem.

Hopefully, that finally clears up my position for you.

[WDavE 332]

I must have missed the actual proof that the Russian Government hacked the DNC. Even the Intel agencies don't agree and are not certain.

So you must have a Top Secret Clearance and the need to know along with privilege.

How else could you be so certain?

 

Maybe your just the next Edgar Cayce.

Who knows....

 

 

[homersapien 11,370]

12 hours ago, WDavE said:

I must have missed the actual proof that the Russian Government hacked the DNC. Even the Intel agencies don't agree and are not certain.

So you must have a Top Secret Clearance and the need to know along with privilege.

How else could you be so certain?

 

Maybe your just the next Edgar Cayce.

Who knows....

 

 

You aren't keeping up. Here's three articles - chosen at random -  that should help:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38370630

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/16/fbi-agrees-cia-russia-hacked-help-trump/95528318/

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/10/505072304/cia-concludes-russian-interference-aimed-to-elect-trump

 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

On 3/5/2017 at 7:01 PM, AUFAN78 said:

Did Attorney General Sessions Lie?

No, It’s a claim, which depends on taking one answer out of context. 

 

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.

 

Now, you are playing with the truth.

Sessions obviously made a false statement.  We can only guess what his intentions were.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

8 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

Now, you are playing with the truth.

Sessions obviously made a false statement.  We can only guess what his intentions were.

So you think he should be charged with perjury? 

[AUFAN78 3,894]

8 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

Now, you are playing with the truth.

Sessions obviously made a false statement.  We can only guess what his intentions were.

There's a method to madness.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

2 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

So you think he should be charged with perjury? 

If I am not mistaken, there is an element of intent involved in a charge of perjury.  So, in this case, I would have to say no unless, new information comes out.  At this point, pretending to know his intentions would be foolish in a court.

However, I do believe he committed perjury.  You do not become a lawyer, a Senator, Attorney General, and not understand the implications of such a question.  I think he is playing Huckleberry Dumb Dumb because it suits his purposes.

Sadly, lying has become SOP in the political theater.  Predictable though.  We, the voting populous, care more about idiotic ideology as opposed to integrity, character, ethical behavior.