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

[elucidator]

@septimus

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

Even the smallest step away from the path of political error is worthy of notice and praise. So, who’s up for some fatted calf?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@GIGObuster

We are gremlins… from the Kremlin.

Like in the classic WB cartoon, this administration is not the new order, but the new odor.

This really stinks.

Huh, I’ve never seen that one before, though I was familiar with the related Falling Hare. The termiteski is my favourite bit.

[RTFirefly]

@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.

Thanks for the explanation - that makes things clearer.

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.

Understood, and agreed.

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

Which is as it should be, no matter how low our regard for the person on trial.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

It now looks like Sessions did not tell the Whitehouseabout his meetings with the Russians.

The White House learned from press reports Wednesday that Sessions had contacts with the Russian ambassador during the campaign, a senior administration official said.

Since this is pretty much the exact thing that resulted in Flynn’s removal, why should Sessions stay on at this point?

And is there a summary anywhere of the Trump team’s connections with Russia? Including former campaign chair Manafort, and Tillerson’s business connections?

Is this administration just basically Moscow on the Potomac at this point?

[Robot_Arm]

@Euphonious_Polemic

Is this administration just basically Moscow on the Potomac at this point?

No, of course not. Multiple members of Trump’s campaign team had contact with the same foreign government, but nobody else knew anything about it. It’s just a coincidence.

[John_Mace]

@Euphonious_Polemic

It now looks like Sessions did not tell the Whitehouseabout his meetings with the Russians.

Since this is pretty much the exact thing that resulted in Flynn’s removal, why should Sessions stay on at this point?

Not really. Flynn lied to Pence and told him he never met with the Russians, and then Pence put himself out there defending him on that. Sessions just never brought it up with the WH.

Not the same at all.

[VinylTurnip]

“I have another call. Hold please. <clicklick> Anno? Jeff! You won’t believe, I am on other line with Mikhail! I call you back.”

[Steve_MB]

@Gyrate

People often forget just how many scandals the Reagan administration had, with 138 administration officials investigated, indicted and/or convicted.

Is Lord Orange even going to have 138 administration officials in place before his whole house of cards tumbles down?

[Defensive_Indifference]

I never knew Sessions’s full name. May I just say that Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III is almost the most Southern name possible? He could maybe score more Southern points by changing his last name to Compson or Sartoris, or maybe by showing up to his (hopefully forthcoming) Senate grilling wearing a linen suit and demanding to be called Colonel. He lives in a big white house with tall columns at the end of a path flanked by cypress trees, doesn’t he?

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@John_Mace

Not really. Flynn lied to Pence and told him he never met with the Russians, and then Pence put himself out there defending him on that. Sessions just never brought it up with the WH.

Not the same at all.

So the main difference is that Pence directly asked Flynn if he spoke to the Russians, but Pence did not directly ask Sessions.

Wow you’re right. The fact that both Flynn and Sessions spoke with the Russians and then lied about it is totally, completely not the same, because in one case, Pence was not lied to directly! I see it now, thanks.

[snoe]

Someone pointed out on Twitter - sorry I can’t find it now - that the Russians have a great deal of leverage over the Trunp administration right now, even if the Russia-Trumpland relationship was wholly innocent (or mostly innocent, or partly innocent, or …).

Even if there’s no fire behind this particular new plume of smoke, the Russians could probably get our AG fired tomorrow with one statement. They could - if they wanted - probably take down Trump without too much trouble, right? Even if it’s all made up. A weird variation on the boy who cried wolf. (“The Boy Who Cried ‘No Puppet! No Puppet! You’re the Puppet,’” maybe?)

Sure glad we didn’t elect that scandal-ridden chick. Congress would be totally bogged down with investigations. :smack:

[John_Mace]

@Euphonious_Polemic

So the main difference is that Pence directly asked Flynn if he spoke to the Russians, but Pence did not directly ask Sessions.

No. But I won’t waste my time further.

[snoe]

@Bayard

I never knew Sessions’s full name. May I just say that Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III is almost the most Southern name possible? He could maybe score more Southern points by changing his last name to Compson or Sartoris, or maybe by showing up to his (hopefully forthcoming) Senate grilling wearing a linen suit and demanding to be called Colonel. He lives in a big white house with tall columns at the end of a path flanked by cypress trees, doesn’t he?

“Foghorn Beauregard Leghorn IV” or something.

Weirdly, he does not really have that lazy Southern gentility (backed by menace) that I’d expect from someone with such a moniker. My favorite description of his appearance is “racist goblin.” Ah well, I’m sure I would have a strong nervous energy too, if people were always being mean to me on the floor of the Senate.

PS: Erik Loomis, lefty blogger at Lawyers Guns & Money, has been calling Sessions by his full Crackro-American* handle for years now.

• I stole that from Ed Kilgore - blame him.

[Ludovic]

@Bayard

I never knew Sessions’s full name. May I just say that Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III is almost the most Southern name possible? He could maybe score more Southern points by changing his last name to Compson or Sartoris, or maybe by showing up to his (hopefully forthcoming) Senate grilling wearing a linen suit and demanding to be called Colonel. He lives in a big white house with tall columns at the end of a path flanked by cypress trees, doesn’t he?

@snoe

“Foghorn Beauregard Leghorn IV” or something.

You could also make his full name “Jefferson Earl Beauregard Sessions III” so his nickname can be “J.E.B.”.

[k9bfriender]

@Euphonious_Polemic

So the main difference is that Pence directly asked Flynn if he spoke to the Russians, but Pence did not directly ask Sessions.

Wow you’re right. The fact that both Flynn and Sessions spoke with the Russians and then lied about it is totally, completely not the same, because in one case, Pence was not lied to directly! I see it now, thanks.

The difference is that Flynn lied to Pence in an off the record conversation causing Pence embarrassment when he went on to repeat what Flynn said. Sessions just lied under oath to the Senate during confirmation hearings to hold one of the highest offices in the land, so, no biggie.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@k9bfriender

The difference is that Flynn lied to Pence in an off the record conversation causing Pence embarrassment when he went on to repeat what Flynn said. Sessions just lied under oath to the Senate during confirmation hearings to hold one of the highest offices in the land, so, no biggie.

Uh oh. Now **John Mace **is not going to waste his time with you any longer either. Don’t you feel bad now?

[snoe]

@k9bfriender

The difference is that Flynn lied to Pence in an off the record conversation causing Pence embarrassment when he went on to repeat what Flynn said. Sessions just lied under oath to the Senate during confirmation hearings to hold one of the highest offices in the land, so, no biggie.

If you are Trump, “lying to my VP” and “lying to Congress” are, probably, in no way equivalent. One example demonstrates disloyalty, the other mere dishonesty - in service of loyalty, no less. So John Mace had (kind of) a point: if you’re Trump, why would you fire Sessions?

[Maus_Magill]

@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.

IOW, He lied under oath, but good luck convicting?

@Euphonious_Polemic

So the main difference is that Pence directly asked Flynn if he spoke to the Russians, but Pence did not directly ask Sessions.

Wow you’re right. The fact that both Flynn and Sessions spoke with the Russians and then lied about it is totally, completely not the same, because in one case, Pence was not lied to directly! I see it now, thanks.

No, the main difference it that Flynn made Pence (and by extension Trump) look bad. Sessions has not… yet.

[John_Mace]

@snoe

If you are Trump, “lying to my VP” and “lying to Congress” are, probably, in no way equivalent. One example demonstrates disloyalty, the other mere dishonesty - in service of loyalty, no less. So John Mace had (kind of) a point: if you’re Trump, why would you fire Sessions?

Exactly. Flynn didn’t “leave”, he was fired. The circumstances are different for Sessions, from Trump’s point of view, so there’s a good chance he won’t be fired.

[JohnT]

Well, he just recused himself about 3 hours after the President said he didn’t need to, so who the hell knows?