• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

WP: Sessions Met with Russia Twice Last Year, Didn't Disclose During Confirmation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Can the media just put a gag order on Nunes? The guy wasn't in the SCIF with the Senate Intelligence Committee and refuses to perform a meaningful investigation. The House's scope in their investigation appears more concerned with hacking and leaks and far less about campaign collusion.. He doesn't know shit.
 
ZOONAMI said:
Fucking idiot. We gonna investigate the press next if you been talking to the Russians. The press isn't the government you dumbass.
Click to expand...

Or under oath. What a dumb fucking excuse.

And now the House Intel Committee complaining that Comey is withholding information from them. Comey is onto to something big.
 
A Serious Man said:
Nunez: "We shouldn't investigate Sessions because that opens the door to investigate anyone who ever talked with the Russians!"

How does that even make sense.
Click to expand...

It makes sense if you consider "talking to Russians" an innocent act rather than an act of high political and national security risk. People keep acting like this talk people are interested in is something like "How's the weather?" when we know that the fact that the people doing the talking had to lie about it under oath means it was a potentially much more serious conversation.
 
rambis said:
They have very easily shifted the conversation to the context of meetings when that was never even material to the question asked. I don't know if its 4D chess or dyslexia but people are already largely off track with the context of his testimony.
Click to expand...

Didn't WSJ report that the election was discussed in these meetings?

Even if you take into account he context he perjured himself.
 
KHarvey16 said:
During oral testimony he answered this question:



With:
Click to expand...

Exactly. I'm not disputing this. I'm saying that I think in order to get a slam dunk perjury case to stick here, you need to excise the "I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and" from his response and the "About the 2016 election" from Leahy's written question. Also, you need Franken's question to be about if Sessions personally, in any capacity met with the Russians.

What IS a slam-dunk here is his need to recuse himself from any Russian/Trump campaign investigations because he was involved the campaign when he met with the Russians.
 
A Serious Man said:
Nunez: "We shouldn't investigate Sessions because that opens the door to investigate anyone who ever talked with the Russians!"

How does that even make sense.
Click to expand...

AKA we have some pretty important Publicans that very well be tied up in it. So it's best I protect myself as long as possible.Thanks.
 
Eric Geller ‏Verified @ericgeller

Devin Nunes, complaining about attention to Flynn/Kislyak calls, threatens to investigate reporters who talk to Russian embassy.


looooooool
 
140.85 said:
Exactly. I'm not disputing this. I'm saying that I think in order to get a slam dunk perjury case to stick here, you need to excise the "I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and" from his response and the "About the 2016 election" from Leahy's written question. Also, you need Franken's question to be about if Sessions personally, in any capacity met with the Russians.

What IS a slam-dunk here is his need to recuse himself because he was involved the campaign when he met with the Russians.
Click to expand...

The oral and written testimonies ones are separate. Regardless of Franken's question he explicitly stated he did not speak with the Russians. There is no valid way around that. I agree some will try but it's black and white that he lied under oath.
 
rambis said:
They have very easily shifted the conversation to the context of meetings when that was never even material to the question asked. I don't know if its 4D chess or dyslexia but people are already largely off track with the context of his testimony.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the context of the meetings are irrelevant. Dems need to be pushing the narrative that Sessions lied, period. The communications weren't illegal, but his blatant lying under oath is perjury, full stop.
 
140.85 said:
Exactly. I'm not disputing this. I'm saying that I think in order to get a slam dunk perjury case to stick here, you need to excise the "I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and" from his response and the "About the 2016 election" from Leahy's written question. Also, you need Franken's question to be about if Sessions personally, in any capacity met with the Russians.

What IS a slam-dunk here is his need to recuse himself because he was involved the campaign when he met with the Russians.
Click to expand...

I legitimately don't get why you would need to excise the part about "I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and..." In fact having that there seems even more damning of an answer than could have been, because he literally casts himself as a surrogate for the campaign, admittedly. Without that sentence he could almost say he wasn't part of the campaign so when answering a question about people affiliated with the campaign he was talking about others. Instead he says: "Hey I'm arguably a part of this campaign and I didn't talk to the russians."
 
Omegasquash said:
I need to amend my Transformers character match of the current administration.

Trump - Definitely Megatron

Pence - Soundwave (used to say Shockwave, but whatever)

Bannon - Shockwave

Cruz - Still Starscream

Edit: Glad to see someone else feels this way too :)
Click to expand...


Hey! Now wait a minute.

Do as Cobra agents next
 
140.85 said:
Exactly. I'm not disputing this. I'm saying that I think in order to get a slam dunk perjury case to stick here, you need to excise the "I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and" from his response and the "About the 2016 election" from Leahy's written question. Also, you need Franken's question to be about if Sessions personally, in any capacity met with the Russians.

What IS a slam-dunk here is his need to recuse himself because he was involved the campaign when he met with the Russians.
Click to expand...
Does the question asked really matter when he volunteered that "he never met with Rusians"?

FWIW, most legal experts have ruled out perjury because you gave to expose intent to decieve which is near impossible. I think resignation is the highest goal here.
 
Nafai1123 said:
Yeah, the context of the meetings are irrelevant. Dems need to be pushing the narrative that Sessions lied, period. The communications weren't illegal, but his blatant lying under oath is perjury, full stop.
Click to expand...

Specifically they need to highlight why this is a major breach of trust. He lied under oath in a confirmation hearing to become the most powerful justice lawyer for the federal government, by lying in such a capacity he is tainted from anything he touches at the federal level because how can we trust him to tell the truth publicly when he won't tell the truth under oath. He has to go, period.
 
tedrotheredro said:
Can the media just put a gag order on Nunes? The guy wasn't in the SCIF with the Senate Intelligence Committee and refuses to perform a meaningful investigation. The House's scope in their investigation appears more concerned with hacking and leaks and far less about campaign collusion.. He doesn't know shit.
Click to expand...

It's not that Nunes is completely refusing to perform the investigation, the FBI according to Adam Schiff is refusing to give the house intelligence committee a full intelligence briefing, not only that, the FBI is also refusing to tell them what investigations FBI is conducting, if the FBI has found anything substantial, who the FBI is investigating, and the scope of the investigation. The house intelligence committee has also not received any testimony, any documents or evidence. So that is limiting their ability to conduct their investigation.
 
Nafai1123 said:
Yeah, the context of the meetings are irrelevant. Dems need to be pushing the narrative that Sessions lied, period. The communications weren't illegal, but his blatant lying under oath is perjury, full stop.
Click to expand...

Allard said:
Specifically they need to highlight why this is a major breach of trust. He lied under oath in a confirmation hearing to become the most powerful justice lawyer for the federal government, by lying in such a capacity he is tainted from anything he touches at the federal level because how can we trust him to tell the truth publicly when he won't tell the truth under oath. He has to go, period.
Click to expand...
I agree. His lie may not be enough for a perjury charge but at the minimum he should be forced to resign.


RDreamer said:
I legitimately don't get why you would need to excise the part about "I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and..." In fact having that there seems even more damning of an answer than could have been, because he literally casts himself as a surrogate for the campaign, admittedly. Without that sentence he could almost say he wasn't part of the campaign so when answering a question about people affiliated with the campaign he was talking about others. Instead he says: "Hey I'm arguably a part of this campaign and I didn't talk to the russians."
Click to expand...
Its insane. Asked a question about if he would simply do his job concerning officals getting found out to have had contact with Russia, he disregards the question and goes full on defensive about his own involvement. If thats not a red flag that something is going on then I dont know what is
 
tedrotheredro said:
Eric Geller ‏Verified @ericgeller

Devin Nunes, complaining about attention to Flynn/Kislyak calls, threatens to investigate reporters who talk to Russian embassy.


looooooool
Click to expand...

Is this the political equivalent of "No U" ?

Nunes needs to be very careful about making threats about potentially jailing the press in writing.

ayeorkean said:
It's not that Nunes is completely refusing to perform the investigation, the FBI according to Adam Schiff is refusing to give the house intelligence committee a full intelligence briefing, not only that, the FBI is also refusing to tell them what investigations FBI is conducting, if the FBI has found anything substantial, who the FBI is investigating, and the scope of the investigation. The house intelligence committee has also not received any testimony, any documents or evidence. So that is limiting their ability to conduct their investigation.
Click to expand...

The FBI believes that part of the federal government has been compromised by foreign powers. That much is clear now.
 
ayeorkean said:
It's not that Nunes is completely refusing to perform the investigation, the FBI according to Adam Schiff is refusing to give the house intelligence committee a full intelligence briefing, not only that, the FBI is also refusing to tell them what investigations FBI is conducting, if the FBI has found anything substantial, who the FBI is investigating, and the scope of the investigation. The house intelligence committee has also not received any testimony, any documents or evidence. So that is limiting their ability to conduct their investigation.
Click to expand...
Is it because the FBI thinks the house committee might have someone who could be on the Russian side?
 
Mr. X said:
Is it because the FBI thinks the house committee might have someone who could be on the Russian side?
Click to expand...

The Russian side or the Trump admin. Either way I could see them being worried about disclosing information which will end up in the defenses hands so they can better cover their tracks.
 
xRNI3Nm.jpg
 
PepsimanVsJoe said:
Wouldn't be a shock.
Already can't trust the administration with anything.
Click to expand...
Whats shocking is that the guy says the committee knows less than a quarter of what the FBI knows. The main body investigating this, the one that the R's are pleading are sufficient enough to tackle this know less than 25% of the details. Its maddening.
 
RDreamer said:
I legitimately don't get why you would need to excise the part about "I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and..." In fact having that there seems even more damning of an answer than could have been, because he literally casts himself as a surrogate for the campaign, admittedly. Without that sentence he could almost say he wasn't part of the campaign so when answering a question about people affiliated with the campaign he was talking about others. Instead he says: "Hey I'm arguably a part of this campaign and I didn't talk to the russians."
Click to expand...

Because he's responding to a question about a CNN report that claims Trump campaign contacts with Russia. He can argue that he was basically saying "I was with the Trump campaign at one point and I didn't have meetings with the Russians about the election".

Depending on how readily available the information about Sessions' meetings were, his openness here could be leveraged to his benefit by saying "well, obviously he thought that was the context since why would lie about something so easily checked?"
 
rambis said:
Its insane. Asked a question about if he would simply do his job concerning officals getting found out to have had contact with Russia, he disregards the question and goes full on defensive about his own involvement. If thats not a red flag that something is going on then I dont know what is
Click to expand...

I just saw the full exchange on TV and I have to agree. His answer and his demeanor are... suspect.
 
DOWN said:
xRNI3Nm.jpg
Click to expand...

They are getting the ice float ready to put Sessions out on.

I mean, none of us believes that this contact was accidental. Same with Flynn. But, until one of these people are indicted and turn on the administration, they'll just keep pretending that all of his closest allies were secretly talking to Russia without his knowledge.
 
140.85 said:
Because he's responding to a question about a CNN report that claims Trump campaign contacts with Russia. He can argue that he was basically saying "I was with the Trump campaign at one point and I didn't have meetings with the Russians about the election".

Depending on how readily available the information about Sessions' meetings were, his openness here could be leveraged to his benefit by saying "well, obviously he thought that was context since why would lie about something so easily checked?"
Click to expand...

The question was about people associated with the campaign. He was part of the campaign since last February.

There is no wiggle room here.
 
Primus said:
USA Today's reporting that the WH is now saying that it didn't know about Sessions' meetings with Kislyak until this story broke.

This is how Flynn went. From "didn't happen" to "he didn't say anything to us" to "don't let the door hit your ass on the way out".
Click to expand...

The White House is burning through appointees just to cover their asses.
Eventually Trump & Co. are going to run out of people to throw under the bus.

In any case, getting rid of Sessions would be a big win for the rest of the country.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

year in review (with Pornhub)
37
654
Sub_Level replied
Xzbit goes to Russia
25
1K
Porcile replied
John Woo nearly blew up Chow Yun Fat with dynamite during the production of Hard Boiled
15
169
nush replied
Aya Hirano goes to Russia
14
887
Heimdall_Xtreme replied
Russia presented it's first humanoid robot
News  2
67
1K
DirtInUrEye replied
Top Bottom