Jefferson Beauregard Sessions the third apparently lied under oath January 10, 2017

[RTFirefly]

@WillFarnaby

My point is we should be used to government being a kleptocracy because that’s all it has been and can be.

I debate politics because there are many victims of state aggression and I would like for there to be less. There are also many benefactors of state violence, like government employees, and I would like for there to be less.

And you would do something about that through what process?

Oh yeah, through democratic institutions. The ones you have no faith in.

(Yeah, I know: you don’t have faith in them, but they might work some of the time. I’ll let you in on a secret: hardly anyone expects them to work well all the time. Those of us who you think might ‘have faith in’ democracy just have different values of ‘some’ than you do, and figure that while it’s never going to be perfect, it’s still better than anything else we can think of, so we might as well do what we can to make it work as best as we can. Or we can be wise and cynical twits and look down on the whole thing.)

[iiandyiiii]

Josh Marshall suggests that this is just another example of the surrounding mini-scandals of a much larger central scandal (collusion between the campaign and Russia).

I don’t know if that’s the case, but the biggest question is why the hell did Sessions lie about this? If he had just said during his confirmation hearings “yes, I met with the Russian ambassador twice, but only in the context of my duties on the Armed Forces Committee”, then that would have been fine. Why did he lie?

[BobLibDem]

@WillFarnaby

My point is we should be used to government being a kleptocracy because that’s all it has been and can be.

I debate politics because there are many victims of state aggression and I would like for there to be less. There are also many benefactors of state violence, like government employees, and I would like for there to be less.

I reject that point of view. Government can be a force for good in the world- the Interstate system, TVA, Civil Rights Act come to mind quite quickly. Leaders need not be greedy bloodsuckers ad Obama and Carter demonstrate. “Government is always evil” is a lazy argument, nothing more than an excuse for not trying.

[Crotalus]

@iiandyiiii

Josh Marshall suggests that this is just another example of the surrounding mini-scandals of a much larger central scandal (collusion between the campaign and Russia).

I don’t know if that’s the case, but the biggest question is why the hell did Sessions lie about this? If he had just said during his confirmation hearings “yes, I met with the Russian ambassador twice, but only in the context of my duties on the Armed Forces Committee”, then that would have been fine. Why did he lie?

That is indeed a big question. Unfortunately, the answer may be as simple as the guy is just another reflexive liar; lying is his default response.

I suspect, however, that there is a huge problem lurking behind all of this.

[RitterSport]

@iiandyiiii

Josh Marshall suggests that this is just another example of the surrounding mini-scandals of a much larger central scandal (collusion between the campaign and Russia).

I don’t know if that’s the case, but the biggest question is why the hell did Sessions lie about this? If he had just said during his confirmation hearings “yes, I met with the Russian ambassador twice, but only in the context of my duties on the Armed Forces Committee”, then that would have been fine. Why did he lie?

Because, according to Senator McCaskill, SASC members don’t usually meet with foreign ambassadors. If fact, she has been on the committee for 10 years and has never done so. Foreign ambassadors meet with members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

[PatriotX]

@iiandyiiii

Josh Marshall suggests that this is just another example of the surrounding mini-scandals of a much larger central scandal (collusion between the campaign and Russia).

I don’t know if that’s the case, but the biggest question is why the hell did Sessions lie about this? If he had just said during his confirmation hearings “yes, I met with the Russian ambassador twice, but only in the context of my duties on the Armed Forces Committee”, then that would have been fine. Why did he lie?

I think that the recent push to talk about and distrust the “deep state” is evidence that there’re more unflattering revelations to come out about the current Admin.

It seems that this is the set-up to cry “Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy!”

[John_Mace]

@iiandyiiii

Josh Marshall suggests that this is just another example of the surrounding mini-scandals of a much larger central scandal (collusion between the campaign and Russia).

I don’t know if that’s the case, but the biggest question is why the hell did Sessions lie about this? If he had just said during his confirmation hearings “yes, I met with the Russian ambassador twice, but only in the context of my duties on the Armed Forces Committee”, then that would have been fine. Why did he lie?

Yeah, I was thinking EXACTLY the same thing. These guys never seem to learn.

[Happy_Lendervedder]

@iiandyiiii

Josh Marshall suggests that this is just another example of the surrounding mini-scandals of a much larger central scandal (collusion between the campaign and Russia).

I don’t know if that’s the case, but the biggest question is why the hell did Sessions lie about this? If he had just said during his confirmation hearings “yes, I met with the Russian ambassador twice, but only in the context of my duties on the Armed Forces Committee”, then that would have been fine. Why did he lie?

Possibly thought the whiff of impropriety would’ve created unseemly headlines. And maybe further digging. And maybe this whole thing is bigger than has currently been exposed. And maybe he thought if he kept his mouth shut entirely, he’d (they’d?) continue to get away with it.

[Chimera]

The list of Trump admin members who met with or spoke with Russian officials during the election is getting a bit long now.

This is going to be much bigger than Watergate. That didn’t involve TREASON.

[septimus]

Stop the presses! A major barricade has been breached!

@Bricker

It is, in my view, lying under oath.

Welcome to the Trump Administration — a crop of Republioturds so infused with criminality that even Bricker admits it.

[Bricker]

@RTFirefly

Wikipedia: Perjury is the intentional act of swearing a false oath or of falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to an official proceeding.[1][A] Contrary to popular misconception, no crime has occurred when a false statement is (intentionally or unintentionally) made while under oath or subject to penalty—instead, criminal culpability only attaches at the instant the declarant falsely asserts the truth of statements (made or to be made) which are material to the outcome of the proceeding.

Bricker, is this definition basically correct? Because if it is, ISTM that, regardless of the question’s specific reference to communications about the 2016 election, his blanket denial was material to the outcome of his confirmation proceeding.

The definition is basically correct.

Unfortunately, though, in the criminal context, he’s entitled to the presumption that his blanket answer be read in the context of the question he was answering. In other words, to secure a criminal conviction, the prosecution must prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, which means disproving any other reasonable scenario except that of guilt. I don’t dispute that the issue was material, but it’s incumbent on the questioner to ask questions that are specific enough to eliminate wriggle room if one hopes to secure a perjury conviction.

Now, don’t misread what I’m saying as any kind of approval. Sessions had a good faith duty to be forthcoming, and not hide behind technicalities. “He didn’t commit a crime,” is not praise.

But criminal law is always construed strictly against the government and leniently against a defendant.

[Gyrate]

@RitterSport

I was going to open a thread about this, basically, jail time or just resignation? But, this thread is better anyway.

So, if Sessions is forced to resign, does any other administration come close to this level of personnel screw up this early? It took Nixon into his second term before everyone had to resign or be jailed. Are there other, earlier administrations that were like this in terms of corruption and lies?

People often forget just how many scandals the Reagan administration had, with 138 administration officials investigated, indicted and/or convicted. Some (Debategate) were trivial matters; some (Iran-Contra) were pretty damn significant. I don’t recall any kicking off quite this early in the administration though.

[QuickSilver]

@Bricker

But criminal law is always construed strictly against the government and leniently against a defendant.

Tricky call though when the defendant plays a key role in the government.

[Lobohan]

@Bricker

The definition is basically correct.

Unfortunately, though, in the criminal context, he’s entitled to the presumption that his blanket answer be read in the context of the question he was answering. In other words, to secure a criminal conviction, the prosecution must prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, which means disproving any other reasonable scenario except that of guilt. I don’t dispute that the issue was material, but it’s incumbent on the questioner to ask questions that are specific enough to eliminate wriggle room if one hopes to secure a perjury conviction.

Now, don’t misread what I’m saying as any kind of approval. Sessions had a good faith duty to be forthcoming, and not hide behind technicalities. “He didn’t commit a crime,” is not praise.

But criminal law is always construed strictly against the government and leniently against a defendant.

I, for one, really appreciate your insight on this.

[SteveG1]

@Chimera

Now we get to see if the Republicans have any ethics at all. Even the smallest drop.

When he lied, was he under oath? I damn well HOPE so. Lock him up.

So now he’s not just a racist scumbag, and a liar, he’s also a traitor.
Send his ass to Gitmo, rendition some information out of him about the Russians, and lock his ass up.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

I would guess his defense to a perjury charge would be one of:

a) I forgot about meeting any Russians. I meet lots of people. So i did not lie.

b) I did not talk about the election. We talked about what dog i should get. And you can’t prove any different. So i did not lie.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Bricker

The definition is basically correct.

Unfortunately, though, in the criminal context, he’s entitled to the presumption that his blanket answer be read in the context of the question he was answering.

I’m not sure I understand. Let’s say I’m on trial for murder – not just any murder, you understand, but the murder of Nathan Yablonski in New York on August 5th of last year. And let’s say I’m simply asked – under oath – whether I murdered Nathan Yablonski in New York on August 5th of last year. And let’s say that I cheerfully reply, “Hey, listen, pal: I didn’t kill anybody in New York on August 5th of last year.”

And let’s say that I in fact killed some other guy in New York on August 5th of last year. Have I committed perjury?

[BigAppleBucky]

@iiandyiiii

Josh Marshall suggests that this is just another example of the surrounding mini-scandals of a much larger central scandal (collusion between the campaign and Russia).

I don’t know if that’s the case, but the biggest question is why the hell did Sessions lie about this? If he had just said during his confirmation hearings “yes, I met with the Russian ambassador twice, but only in the context of my duties on the Armed Forces Committee”, then that would have been fine. Why did he lie?

I was thinking about that overnight and the answer might be as simple as he didn’t want to be forced to recuse himself from any 45-Russia collusion investigation.

[BigAppleBucky]

@Bricker

The definition is basically correct.

Unfortunately, though, in the criminal context, he’s entitled to the presumption that his blanket answer be read in the context of the question he was answering. In other words, to secure a criminal conviction, the prosecution must prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, which means disproving any other reasonable scenario except that of guilt. I don’t dispute that the issue was material, but it’s incumbent on the questioner to ask questions that are specific enough to eliminate wriggle room if one hopes to secure a perjury conviction.

Now, don’t misread what I’m saying as any kind of approval. Sessions had a good faith duty to be forthcoming, and not hide behind technicalities. “He didn’t commit a crime,” is not praise.

But criminal law is always construed strictly against the government and leniently against a defendant.

Kind of like one of Hillary’s lawyerly defenses.

[elucidator]

It wasn’t Trump campaign insider and surrogate Jeffrey Beauregard Sessions III that spoke with the Russian ambassador, it was Jeffrey Beauregard Sessions III the member of the Senate Armed Forces Committee! Totally different!