11 ms·

I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that Senate confirmation hearings are under oath, and therefore Sessions has perjured himself. Last I checked, perjury

I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that Senate confirmation hearings are under oath, and therefore Sessions has perjured himself. Last I checked, perjury was a felony. What happens next?

ForrestN 10y ago
Nancy Pelosi is right: "... the Attorney General must resign. Sessions is not fit to serve as the top law enforcement officer of our country and must resign. There must be an independent, bipartisan, outside commission to investigate the Trump political, personal and financial connections to the Russians."
- gordon_freeman 10y ago
  This is becoming the next Watergate. Isn't it?
  - vorotato 10y ago
    If the president actually colluded with the Russians I'd say it's substantially bigger than Watergate.
  - drewrv 10y ago
    I really hope I'm cynical and wrong but I doubt it. Without congressional investigations nothing will happen. So far they haven't really stood up to Trump on anything else, not sure why they'd start now. Maybe after they repeal the ACA and cut taxes on the rich they do something, but they'll need Trumps cooperation to make those first two things happen.
cbgb 10y ago
While that may be true, I think what this boils down to is a form of prosecutorial discretion, where the discretion is in the hands of the ruling party.
mynameishere 10y ago
What happens next? Assuming that Congress wants to make the actual precedent of pushing for criminal charges for perjury (hint: they don't) you would have to actually establish that perjury occurred. He was asked about whether he discussed the election, not whether he discussed anything at all. The press really is running with this Russia stuff though. It's pretty impressive. What exactly is the angle? Why did Russia want Trump to win? Did he promise to hand over the Crimea or something? Does anyone know?
- fatbird 10y ago
  There is currently a developing story about how various players intersect in the Ukraine. The short version is the Trump lifts sanctions against Russia, a Ukranian politician named Artemenko leads the charge to oust the current Ukranian president Poroshenko on corruption charges, and Russia keeps Crimea. This was outlined in a document hand-delivered to Michael Flynn, the disgraced/resigned National Security Advisor, by Michael Cohen, Trump's longtime personal lawyer with massive interests in the Ukraine. It's an unholy mess and Talking Points Memo seems to be doing the best job of tracking this facet of the ongoing trainwreck. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/19/us/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-russia.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/19/us/politics/donald-trump-... There's also this fantastic New Yorker story just published that outlines the Russian position generally. Shorter: fucking with the U.S. was worth it to push back against American arrogance and to assert Russian worth on the world stage; didn't expect it to work this well. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/06/trump-putin-and-the-new-cold-war http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/06/trump-putin-and...
  - ModernMech 10y ago
    Ah yeah, I just linked to the discussion about the New Yorker piece that aired on Fresh Air, also a great listen.
- ModernMech 10y ago
  > Why did Russia want Trump to win? Did he promise to hand over the Crimea or something? I was listening to this today [1], and it explained that Russia fully expected Clinton to win, and was just looking to make her presidency chaotic. You know had Hillary won, and news of Russian "hacking" reached Republicans, they would be reacting just as the Democrats are now, calling for investigations and lobbying charges of collusion with the Russians against Clinton. Trump even primed the base to accept that line of attack, calling the election rigged when it looked like he was going to lose (since that's always his reaction when he starts to lose). That Trump won came as a shock to Putin, and now after a brief honeymoon with Trump, Putin has ordered to dial back praising Trump on national media. So really, there may be no direct link between the Trump campaign and Russian meddling, but they certainly aren't doing themselves favors by lying about it. I could understand that the optics look bad, given the circumstances, but being caught lying about it looks exponentially worse, especially since sessions previously refused to recuse himself from the investigation into said contacts with Russians! [1]: https://www.npr.org/player/embed/517994347/517994380 https://www.npr.org/player/embed/517994347/517994380
enraged_camel 10y ago
Here's what George W. Bush's ethics lawyer has to say: https://twitter.com/RWPUSA/status/837136831405752320 https://twitter.com/RWPUSA/status/837136831405752320
jjirsa 10y ago
Perjury, like libel, requires intent and a lack of ambiguity - you will not see a perjury prosecution from this.
skyrw 10y ago
There is nothing here to prove that he perjured himself. From the article: In January, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) asked Sessions for answers to written questions. “Several of the President-elect’s nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?” Leahy wrote. Sessions responded with one word: “No.” Justice officials said Sessions met with Kislyak on Sept. 8 in his capacity as a member of the armed services panel rather than in his role as a Trump campaign surrogate. “He was asked during the hearing about communications between Russia and the Trump campaign — not about meetings he took as a senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee,” Flores said. ___ Unless they can prove that the meeting was related to the election then it seems unlikely that this was perjury.
- adriand 10y ago
  From the NYT article: ---------- On Wednesday, a Justice Department official confirmed that Mr. Sessions had two conversations with Ambassador Kislyak last year, when he was still a senator, despite testifying at his Jan. 10 confirmation hearing that he had no contact with the Russians. At that hearing, Mr. Sessions was asked what he would do if it turned out to be true that anyone affiliated with the Trump team had communicated with the Russian government in the course of the campaign. He said he was “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,” Mr. Sessions said at the time.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- pxlfkr 10y ago
  His answer to Senator Franken is more damning. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BpgHcanjCQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BpgHcanjCQ "I have been called a surrogate at a time or two on that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians. Um. And I'm unable to comment on it."
justonepost 10y ago
It's funny how all logic completely goes out the window when politics is concerned. Otherwise super bright people I know just start uttering the most random of things. Welcome to politics as sport. As long as my team is winning, who cares. The question posed to him during the hearing was did he meet with Russian government about the campaign. Senators meet ambassadors. It's what they do. As long as he didn't negotiate for Trump, it's all good. That being said, a special bipartisan prosecutor makes sense. Session should recuse himself from this issue.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- wahern 10y ago
  According to the article it was the written question submitted by Sen. Leahy that limited itself to communications specifically discussing the campaign. The oral question by Sen. Franken was more open ended, and Sessions response seemed even less ambiguous. At his Jan. 10 Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing, Sessions was asked by Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) what he would do if he learned of any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of the 2016 campaign. “I’m not aware of any of those activities,” he responded. He added: “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.” Officials said Sessions did not consider the conversations relevant to the lawmakers’ questions and did not remember in detail what he discussed with Kislyak. I don't think there's any kind of conspiracy involving Russia. But clearly there was a conspiracy among the Russians to effect the campaign. And there _might_ be something of a conspiracy within Trump's camp in the sense that they're intentionally circling the wagons regarding Trump's preferred Russian policy. I wouldn't speculate about the motivations behind Trump's preferences because they're probably numerous and not even necessarily coherent; more like a general coincidence of interests that both Trump and Russia would like to exploit.

I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that Senate confirmation hearings are under oath, and therefore Sessions has perjured himself. Last I checked, perjury was a felony. What happens next?

ForrestN 10y ago

Nancy Pelosi is right: "... the Attorney General must resign. Sessions is not fit to serve as the top law enforcement officer of our country and must resign. There must be an independent, bipartisan, outside commission to investigate the Trump political, personal and financial connections to the Russians."

gordon_freeman 10y ago
This is becoming the next Watergate. Isn't it?
- vorotato 10y ago
  If the president actually colluded with the Russians I'd say it's substantially bigger than Watergate.
- drewrv 10y ago
  I really hope I'm cynical and wrong but I doubt it. Without congressional investigations nothing will happen. So far they haven't really stood up to Trump on anything else, not sure why they'd start now. Maybe after they repeal the ACA and cut taxes on the rich they do something, but they'll need Trumps cooperation to make those first two things happen.

cbgb 10y ago

While that may be true, I think what this boils down to is a form of prosecutorial discretion, where the discretion is in the hands of the ruling party.

mynameishere 10y ago

What happens next? Assuming that Congress wants to make the actual precedent of pushing for criminal charges for perjury (hint: they don't) you would have to actually establish that perjury occurred. He was asked about whether he discussed the election, not whether he discussed anything at all. The press really is running with this Russia stuff though. It's pretty impressive. What exactly is the angle? Why did Russia want Trump to win? Did he promise to hand over the Crimea or something? Does anyone know?

fatbird 10y ago
There is currently a developing story about how various players intersect in the Ukraine. The short version is the Trump lifts sanctions against Russia, a Ukranian politician named Artemenko leads the charge to oust the current Ukranian president Poroshenko on corruption charges, and Russia keeps Crimea. This was outlined in a document hand-delivered to Michael Flynn, the disgraced/resigned National Security Advisor, by Michael Cohen, Trump's longtime personal lawyer with massive interests in the Ukraine. It's an unholy mess and Talking Points Memo seems to be doing the best job of tracking this facet of the ongoing trainwreck. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/19/us/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-russia.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/19/us/politics/donald-trump-... There's also this fantastic New Yorker story just published that outlines the Russian position generally. Shorter: fucking with the U.S. was worth it to push back against American arrogance and to assert Russian worth on the world stage; didn't expect it to work this well. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/06/trump-putin-and-the-new-cold-war http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/06/trump-putin-and...
- ModernMech 10y ago
  Ah yeah, I just linked to the discussion about the New Yorker piece that aired on Fresh Air, also a great listen.
ModernMech 10y ago
> Why did Russia want Trump to win? Did he promise to hand over the Crimea or something? I was listening to this today [1], and it explained that Russia fully expected Clinton to win, and was just looking to make her presidency chaotic. You know had Hillary won, and news of Russian "hacking" reached Republicans, they would be reacting just as the Democrats are now, calling for investigations and lobbying charges of collusion with the Russians against Clinton. Trump even primed the base to accept that line of attack, calling the election rigged when it looked like he was going to lose (since that's always his reaction when he starts to lose). That Trump won came as a shock to Putin, and now after a brief honeymoon with Trump, Putin has ordered to dial back praising Trump on national media. So really, there may be no direct link between the Trump campaign and Russian meddling, but they certainly aren't doing themselves favors by lying about it. I could understand that the optics look bad, given the circumstances, but being caught lying about it looks exponentially worse, especially since sessions previously refused to recuse himself from the investigation into said contacts with Russians! [1]: https://www.npr.org/player/embed/517994347/517994380 https://www.npr.org/player/embed/517994347/517994380

enraged_camel 10y ago

Here's what George W. Bush's ethics lawyer has to say: https://twitter.com/RWPUSA/status/837136831405752320 https://twitter.com/RWPUSA/status/837136831405752320

jjirsa 10y ago

Perjury, like libel, requires intent and a lack of ambiguity - you will not see a perjury prosecution from this.

skyrw 10y ago

There is nothing here to prove that he perjured himself. From the article: In January, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) asked Sessions for answers to written questions. “Several of the President-elect’s nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?” Leahy wrote. Sessions responded with one word: “No.” Justice officials said Sessions met with Kislyak on Sept. 8 in his capacity as a member of the armed services panel rather than in his role as a Trump campaign surrogate. “He was asked during the hearing about communications between Russia and the Trump campaign — not about meetings he took as a senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee,” Flores said. ___ Unless they can prove that the meeting was related to the election then it seems unlikely that this was perjury.

adriand 10y ago
From the NYT article: ---------- On Wednesday, a Justice Department official confirmed that Mr. Sessions had two conversations with Ambassador Kislyak last year, when he was still a senator, despite testifying at his Jan. 10 confirmation hearing that he had no contact with the Russians. At that hearing, Mr. Sessions was asked what he would do if it turned out to be true that anyone affiliated with the Trump team had communicated with the Russian government in the course of the campaign. He said he was “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,” Mr. Sessions said at the time.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
pxlfkr 10y ago
His answer to Senator Franken is more damning. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BpgHcanjCQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BpgHcanjCQ "I have been called a surrogate at a time or two on that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians. Um. And I'm unable to comment on it."

justonepost 10y ago

It's funny how all logic completely goes out the window when politics is concerned. Otherwise super bright people I know just start uttering the most random of things. Welcome to politics as sport. As long as my team is winning, who cares. The question posed to him during the hearing was did he meet with Russian government about the campaign. Senators meet ambassadors. It's what they do. As long as he didn't negotiate for Trump, it's all good. That being said, a special bipartisan prosecutor makes sense. Session should recuse himself from this issue.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
wahern 10y ago
According to the article it was the written question submitted by Sen. Leahy that limited itself to communications specifically discussing the campaign. The oral question by Sen. Franken was more open ended, and Sessions response seemed even less ambiguous. At his Jan. 10 Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing, Sessions was asked by Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) what he would do if he learned of any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of the 2016 campaign. “I’m not aware of any of those activities,” he responded. He added: “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.” Officials said Sessions did not consider the conversations relevant to the lawmakers’ questions and did not remember in detail what he discussed with Kislyak. I don't think there's any kind of conspiracy involving Russia. But clearly there was a conspiracy among the Russians to effect the campaign. And there _might_ be something of a conspiracy within Trump's camp in the sense that they're intentionally circling the wagons regarding Trump's preferred Russian policy. I wouldn't speculate about the motivations behind Trump's preferences because they're probably numerous and not even necessarily coherent; more like a general coincidence of interests that both Trump and Russia would like to exploit.