[NYT] Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence

Are you referring to the fact that Al Franken(can we take a moment to reflect that Stuart Smalley is asking an AG candidate about Russian contacts....) posed the question in relation to the campaign? Ok, I can see the angle, but you know it stinks either way.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/...ons-russia-trump-investigation-democrats.html

 

i agree, i think the hardcore anti-trumpers are russian plants. they are trying to make the left appear so incompetent and so insufferable that more people move toward trump. the problem is that it's completely unnecessary. the left are more than capable than doing the job themselves. stupid russians.

 

If only that were true...

 

oops

 

But remember: he doesn't support President Trump!

 

Don't play the tweet game, @Commodore. We can all find something under 140 characters to fit our narrative. To paraphrase a tweet I saw: "Ambassador Kislyak must be the world's most boring conversationalist; nobody can remember speaking with him!"

If Claire McCaskill were the Attorney General, and had not disclosed meeting with parties to an active investigation prior to assuming that office, I'd demand she recuse herself, too, at the least.

 

I actually hope Trump and the republicans in congress stretch this out for weeks. Sessions is essentially neutered as attorney general at this point, and the longer this drags out in congress and in the public's eye the better. This is looking more and more like the days of Watergate... drip by drip more information comes to the surface and in process, the connections link closer and closer to the president.

 

the transcripts from the confirmation hearing.

Leahy: “has there been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day”

Sessions: "no"

that's not a lie.

 

And this would be relevent, how? Did McCaskill perjure herself while under oath as a nominee for the United States Attorney General? No? Sessions did. Care to address that?

 

the questions were asked by the senators in the context of the campaign and that's how Sessions answered

the idea that it rises to perjury, when nothing about the meeting was illegal or improper, and it was part of the public record, is laughable

 

That was in response to Leahy? I believe the question, and alleged perjury, was in response to Senator Franken, not in response to Senator Leahy. But I suspect you know that already, and chose to highlight the wrong statement.

 

Oh rly? is that what wouldabeen23 meant? you know, the person i was responding to.

The Franken quote is also taken out of place. That's why the first thing i posted was the conversation.

just out of curiosity, does this make wouldabeen23 a liar in your book?

 

That was not from the confirmation hearing, what you're quoting is an answer from Sessions on a questionnaire from Senator Leahy.

 

As much as I'd like to see Sessions (and Trump) gone, I don't think this amounts to perjury. It wasn't full disclosure, but it may not have even been intentionally misleading.

 

This CNN article includes the video of Sessions' response to Senator Franken's question:

He did not ask "about the campaign".

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

 

Depends on what the definition of 'is' is.

 

Straw dog. Try to stay on topic... Sessions intentionally misleading, if not outright lying under oath.

 

Sessions might fall, but there is no way I can see this get to Trump, he just have to claim I did not know.