“To the best of my recollection …”
Fuck you, Weasel.
“I do not recall any discussions with the Russian Ambassador, or any other representative of the Russian government, regarding the political campaign on these occasions or any other occasions."
I do not recall.
That simple statement is how you avoid the perjury charges when tapes inevitably prove otherwise.
Shorter Sessions: “If I would have thought about it, I could have told the truth but it didn’t occur to me.”
So, Jefferson Beauregard, you, as a US Senator representing the American people, sat down with the Russian ambassador in the middle of an election in which multiple intelligence agencies publicly concluded that the Russian government was intentionally interfering in the election process in order to influence the outcome, and you didn’t raise the subject with Russia’s representative in the United States? You didn’t ask him if they were doing what the IC had concluded? You didn’t tell him to stop it? You just chatted about how you once went to Russia with a church group?
So, you are either lying or incompetent, or both.
Commit perjury, get caught, then ask for a mulligan.
Don’t try that at home please…for professional liars only.
My question is: what should have someone in Sessions’ position have said under the circumstances if he didn’t want to be perceived as sanctioning Russian meddling in the election?
It seems to me that, given the revelations of Russian interference then in the news, anything short of a firm demand that Russia cease and desist its activities would reasonably have been interpreted as the campaign’s go-ahead. If that’s the case and, instead of conveying such a message, Sessions said, “did you see the game?” or “nice weather” or, say, “we anticipate better relations between our countries under a Trump presidency,” the signal would have gotten through loud and clear regardless of whether Russian interference ever came up explicitly.
It’s just not credible. He wanted to avoid recusal and was deliberately trying to hide the ball so he could stay in the mix and taint the investigations. I find the fact that he was actually trying to avoid answering the question Franken asked to be particularly salient evidence of his intent to deceive right out of the gate.
“What would you do?”
He then never says what he would or wouldn’t do, but instead provides an elaborate diversionary excuse for not recusing himself…getting right to the heart of the matter and showing he understood where Franken was going. He was trying to head Franken off at the pass. So he deliberately implies he wouldn’t recuse himself but doesn’t outright say “I sure as hell won’t recuse myself though, because I’m here to undermine the entire investigation.” In that context, trying to mince words in a way that makes everyone think you never met with the Russians at all is just an outright lie, because in that context he knew damn well what was being asked and what they were getting at, and he showed it with his answer.
“What would I do? I’d recuse myself. I was a campaign surrogate so my participation in the investigation would be perceived as potential bias.”
BOOM. DONE. Didn’t even have to lie or even bring up that concept of himself meeting with the Russians. Instead he avoided saying what he’d do or not do, launching into a gratuitous offer of what he wanted them to believe were reasons he shouldn’t have to recuse himself. And that’s what’s so stupid. He didn’t want to have to recuse himself, but knew he should…any attorney with even a modicum of sense would know that he should recuse himself under the circumstances, particularly since he knew he did have meetings with the Russians…and that desire to avoid doing what he knew he SHOULD do was the ONLY reason he finds himself in this situation, because it caused him to spew something he didn’t even have to talk about if he would just have admitted to himself that he didn’t get to play the spoiler of these investigations with his newfound AG powers.
Sessions is a lying little mutt. He did recall parts of the conversation about church-goers being welcome in the old Soviet union and that the Ambassador was not a church- goer. .And , oh yeah, Ukraine somehow came up. Little bigot should be grateful , that Senator Grassley would not allow him to be questioned further.
It’s all cool. He back-dated his supplemental letter to before the date of his original testimony, so the kerfuffle never alternative happened.
What a worm, not enough character to resign…
“I did not mention communications I had had with the Russian Ambassador over the years because the question did not ask about them,”
You’re in trouble, mister.
Thanks. My point is, what should he have done when meeting the Russian ambassador and what message would he have sent if–as appears was the case–he didn’t do it? Of course we need to know what was actually said but, on some level, it doesn’t even matter. The fact that the they had a cordial meeting in which the elephant in the room didn’t come up is, under the circumstances, plenty damning. As I said: the signal would have gotten through–i.e., if you keep doing what you’re doing, you won’t hear complaints from us.
That’s presumably why he first forgot the very fact of the meeting–and only later, when that was blown, the content. The fact of the meeting is itself a problem given the context.
(And the fact that the Russians knew it happened, and could have used it for leverage after he neglected to reveal it, is yet another problem…)
According to The Hill, Sessions did not meet with Kirlyak as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, he met with him as a candidate for reelection: “The Wall Street Journal said Thursday he used campaign funds for the travel, rather than official Senate Armed Services Committee funds.”
I think we need another explanatory letter.
I think that’s correct. Just the fact of the meeting was sufficient under these unprecedented circumstances to create the perception of bias. That’s enough to require recusal. Could the substance of the meeting be potentially even more damning? Sure. But I think he felt secure that nobody would ever get to that and he was really just focused on avoiding recusing himself so he could “help out” Trump and his cronies.
Ha…I didn’t know that yet. That’s pretty damning. Of course, the FEC is completely useless under Trump so we won’t hear from them about it unless someone forces their hand.
How is this inadequate?
Here’s a preliminary list:
-
It’s a lawyer-drafted letter, not a real-time answer to real-time questioning including follow-ups.
-
It’s not under oath.
-
It says he didn’t disclose communications with Russians because the subject of his communications with Russians was not in the question, when the issue is why he didn’t disclose communications with Russians when the subject of his communications with Russians was in the answer.
-
It denies nothing except having a recollection.
-
It’s not under oath.
-
It’s not consistent with the duty to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
-
It refers to “representatives of the Russian government” relating to “the political campaign,” which can exclude lots of people and lots of subjects depending on what he means by “representatives,” “Russian,” “government,” and “political campaign.”
-
It’s not under oath.
-
He had not heard allegations of Trump campaign communications with the Russian government until Al Franken mentioned it on January 10, 2017?
-
If he had mentioned meeting the ambassador at the convention, he would have had to deal with questions about (among other things) the platform change, which is conveniently beyond the scope of the letter.
-
Did I mention it’s not under oath?
Still lying.
