Key question to my mind is how much of a Trump surrogate was he? Was he an integral part of the Trump campaign, or did he just endorse Trump and maybe appear at a rally or two? ISTM this makes a difference in parsing his response to the Senate.
In any event, I certainly think he should recuse himself from the investigation. No big harm in doing that.
Claire McCaskill, today:
“I’ve been on the Armed Services Com for 10 years.No call or meeting w/Russian ambassador. Ever. Ambassadors call members of Foreign Rel Com.”
Claire McCaskill, Aug 6, 2015:
“Today calls with British, Russian, and German Ambassadors re: Iran deal. #doingmyhomework”
Claire McCaskill, Jan 30, 2013:
“Off to meeting w/Russian Ambassador. Upset about the arbitrary/cruel decision to end all US adoptions,even those in process.”
Maybe she forgot about those meetings?
I doubt the Armed Forces Com deals with adoptions.
Ditto with the Iran deal.
Ah so it wasn’t Claire McCaskill the Armed Service Committee member that was meeting with the Russian Ambassador. It was Claire McCaskill someone else, right?
Kinda like it wasn’t Jeff Sessions the Trump campaign insider that was talking to the Russian Ambassador. See how that works?
McCaskill was obviously wrong, but that’s not the issue – the issue is that Sessions said something that wasn’t true (that he didn’t meet with any Russians) under oath in the confirmation hearing. He may have meant “I didn’t meet with any Russians about the campaign”, but that’s not what he said, and not what he was asked by Franken. In fact, the question from Franken was about what he would do if there were evidence of collusion with Russia, not about whether he met with any Russians – but for some reason, Sessions answered (falsely) that he hadn’t met with any Russians.
Which provided the context to Sessions’ answer.
Sessions was the chairman of the Trump campaign’s National Security Advisory Committee. Looks pretty “integral” from here.
Not really, unless one is inclined to find any possible quasi-logic that might excuse his inaccurate answer. I doubt it’s logic that Sessions would have excused had, say, Hillary Clinton used the same sort of reasoning to say something about emails or Benghazi that on the face of it was factually inaccurate.
He didn’t answer Franken’s question, but he did say, for some reason, that he hadn’t met with any Russians. That’s a false statement that he made. Maybe he forgot, or meant something else, but those are just excuses for saying something false.
… in the context of the campaign (which is what the question was about).
What kind of context is the GOP convention?
No, not in the context of the campaign, but in the time period of the campaign, explicitly. Those are entirely different things.
Here is the full context of the question and answer, on video:
It is pretty clear that Sessions was talking about meeting with Russians in the context of Franken’s question. Which was all about campaign and “collusion”.
It’s pretty clear that Franken was asking about the time period of the campaign, since that’s what “in the course of this campaign” means. Sessions just said that he didn’t meet any Russians.
I seriously doubt you, or Sessions, would be so generous to Hillary Clinton were she to use the same reasoning. Do you dispute this?
And it is also pretty clear that what Franken was asking about was Trump’s campaign people talking to the Russians about the campaign.
Of course not. Neither would you if the roles were reversed. You’d be defending it. Do you dispute this? (Actually, don’t bother answering, the answer would be part of the partisanship as well).
In light of your second answer, there’s obviously no point in continuing this conversation. I’ll note that on this very board, I’ve criticized Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for lying and being otherwise deceptive, on multiple occasions.
Go Team Trump, no matter what they do or say!
By now, I would be tired of repeatedly making the same arguments about so many different people in the Clinton administration.
People in the IC or otherwise who have security clearances are taught to disclose contact with foreign nationals, because it’s much better to get in front of something that ends up being nothing than to try to explain to an investigator why you didn’t disclose something. I’m assuming Sen Sessions had a security clearance, he should have known this.
When asked directly whether or not he met with the Russian ambassador, even in the context of the campaign, the shrewd move based on the above guidance would have been to say, “No. Not in the context of the campaign. I did meet with the Russian ambassador on 2 occasions, during the campaign, but I was wearing a different hat and did not discuss the campaign.” No problem then.
Why did he omit this information? Too many words? My non-partisan view, which would apply to a hypothetical Clinton AG as well, is that this is probably nothing; however, not disclosing the contact is bad optics, and justifies further scrutiny; I wouldn’t be opposed to an independent, bi-partisan investigation, with the caveat that I don’t want it to turn into an expensive, pointless, political Benghazi-esque shitshow. Do you disagree with any of that?
Sessions met with the Russian ambassador in his Senate office. It was not in any way clandestine, and was I am sure properly “disclosed” at the time as all such meetings are.
Not everyone is as adept at lawyering his answers as Bill Clinton and his wife.
Yes, I do. In the current atmosphere there is absolutely no way to avoid it devolving into an expensive, pointless, political Benghazi-esque shitshow. It’s a 100% guarantee.
Thank you for correctly describing “Benghazi!!!”
Go Team Trump! Doesn’t matter what they say or do, or what they’ve done in the past… nothing can be wrong as long as it’s in the service of Team Trump! All will be defended on Team Trump!