It could go either way. This is getting down to shades of Clinton’s “is” definition, which is very technical and nitpicky, and did not fly back then. It comes down to if whomever is in charge is going to let it fly or not. If it comes down to Mueller, then no, it’s not going to fly. Congress, sure, they’ll let him off. That’s where the real discussion is–who’s in charge of parsing this? I’ve seen a variety of opinions, but am not sure what to make of it, not being a lawyer or policy wonk.
2 Likes
Checked with my wife. The mandatory minimum penalty for lying about a blowjob is dismemberment while sleeping.
That’s pretty serious.
2 Likes
Nah - he really does look like a Keebler elf.
Now if we’re talking about his soul…
5 Likes
All we have is the George Papadopoulos testimony at this point. Wait until Mueller gets done with Manafort & Gates plea bargains and there might be much stronger case.
1 Like
I would love to read the stretch of legal alchemy by which this would not be perjury.
If it’s short it will be laughable, if it’s long it will be a magnificent fiction worth examining for it’s breathtaking gall as well as creativity.
4 Likes
The red paint on the table is a nice touch there.
2 Likes
While under oath, he said he hadn’t communicated with any Russians. He had.
6 Likes
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 didn’t have – did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it
His statement is curiously precise. Almost as if he saw the question coming and tried for some wriggle room.
2 Likes
Yeah, kinda confused about why Democrats should be all upset. I guess it’s just the “hurr hurr hurr let’s piss off the libtards!” mentality at work: too busy trying to taunt to actually figure out how Democrats tick.
2 Likes
Absolutely. Because someone has personal contacts in Russia is no indication that any of those contacts where used during the campaign. He suggested making use of those contacts but according to the narrative, that suggestion was shot down by Sessions. Courts care less about how things look than they do actual verifiable facts. While you may feel this looks like perjury, there is no actual evidence of it and evidence is one of those things you kind of need to have in order to successfully prosecute someone.
Maybe they weren’t really communicating with the Russia government?
Is there a Tinder-like app for shady international political hookups?
/s
Only because he’s a “respectable” powerful white man. It is entirely unreasonable to doubt that Jeff Sessions was lying there. Have you seen a video where it shows the look on his face after he gives that statement?
But we already knew what he said wasn’t true. He himself met with Russians one more than one occasion. He says, “Look, that’s not what I meant,” and they try to go after Franken for asking a “gotcha” question when Franken didn’t even ask the question he answered.
“If you are not careful … someone will get on your case” sounds a lot like a different way of saying, “Something when I say things people disagree with me,” maybe coupled with, “Some people go straight to personal attacks when the disagree with someone.”
There’s probably something to the view that American politics has become much more about clan affiliation than about policy, but that’s also a self-fulfilling idea. It can be used to dismiss someone as clannish rather than accepting that they genuinely disagree with the merits of your point.
Come on! It’s been extensively covered in the news near the time of the original statement that Sessions himself had more than one meeting with Russian diplomats during the campaign. Sessions has made public excuses about how that wasn’t really a lie on camera. This issue was the impetus for him recusing himself from the Russia investigation. It’s probably one of the most important moments in the Trump presidency (since it led to Rosenstein taking over the Russia matter, which ultimately led to the Mueller investigation).
If we’re going to reflexively defend people with power, could we do so without saying obviously untrue things?
7 Likes
Perjury, smurgery, it’s whether or not a person smokes pot that decides if they are a good person.
1 Like
The White House diet: Binge and perjury.
4 Likes
Lawful Good would be nice, but I would settle for Lawful Neutral.
7 Likes
More the latter. Accused of “just asking questions”, or outright shouting down and hostility. Disagreement is fine; most people seem capable of respectfully disagreeing here. And, when I’ve personally fleshed out my opinions the hostility is dialed back (I’ve seen this with others as well). Most people here don’t seem to have an issue with suggesting that Obama did some bad things, especially when you present your reasoning, but it’s the tone that seems to set them off.
https://twitter.com/KenDilanianNBC/status/926152966712758272
“Oh, those Russians.”
9 Likes
Referring to the question about communications with Russians, Sessions testified “I’m not aware of any of those activities” and Papadopolous says that Sessions was indeed aware. If other people can say Sessions was aware, then that sure looks like perjury to me.
Al Franken wrote Jeff a nice letter:
Something about “trust” and “your word”. Both of which Jeff has none.
2 Likes
