# Session lies again **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 24, 2017, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/session-lies-again/787379 "2017-05-24T23:17:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2017, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/session-lies-again/787379/41 "2017-05-26T03:56:44Z")
That makes sense. Thanks Ravenman. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2017, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/session-lies-again/787379/42 "2017-05-26T12:36:07Z")
Well. maybe. [https://thinkprogress.org/jeff-duncan-sessions-security-clearance-cnn-trump-russia-33f2299766b9](https://thinkprogress.org/jeff-duncan-sessions-security-clearance-cnn-trump-russia-33f2299766b9) **House Republican spreads fake news to discredit damaging report on Jeff Sessions** > [@](#): > > On Wednesday, CNN broke news that Attorney General Jeff Sessions failed to disclose his meetings with Russian officials on a security clearance application he filed ahead of becoming attorney general. > > “Sessions, who met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak at least two times last year, didn’t note those interactions on the form, which requires him to list ‘any contact’ he or his family had with a ‘foreign government’ or its ‘representatives’ over the past seven years,” CNN reported, citing Justice Department officials. > > In early March Sessions recused himself from any investigations related to the Trump campaign after Justice Department officials told the Washington Post he had misled senators during his confirmation hearing about his meetings with Kislyak. Sessions had testified that he hadn’t communicated with Russians when he in fact had on at least two occasions… > [@](#): > > …Subsequent tweets posted by Duncan made clear he’s basing his claim about CNN backtracking on comments made by Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) on Thursday. During a CNN interview, Speier said that if Sessions met with Kislyak in his role as a senator, then he didn’t need to disclose those meetings on his security clearance application. … All of which simply recaps what we have already discussed. But there is this as well… > [@](#): > > …But it’s far from clear that Sessions was acting as a senator when he met with Kislyak. As the Wall Street Journal reported, one of Sessions’ meetings with the Russian ambassador happened at the Republican National Convention — _an event Sessions traveled to and from using campaign funds._ What’s more, a person who was at the RNC told the Journal that Sessions and Kislyak discussed the Trump campaign. > CNN addresses this in its story. > > _The piece quotes Mark Zaid, a Washington attorney who specializes in national security law, as saying, “My interpretation is that a member of Congress would still have to reveal the appropriate foreign government contacts notwithstanding it was on official business.”_… (emphasis mine) Perhaps this isn’t all as cut and dried as friend **Ravenman** would prefer to believe. Or perhaps, as he has firmly noted, I am simply too stupid to understand. Permit me to doubt it. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2017, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/session-lies-again/787379/43 "2017-05-26T12:50:36Z")
Ravenman, I want to make sure I understand you so please clarify. Your justification of Sessions lying about his contacts with a foreign government trying to undermine the presidential election is that he was deliberately lying but he knew he could get away with it, is that correct? He did lie, that is without question, he’s admitted it. He hasn’t claimed that he didn’t know he was lying either. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2017, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/session-lies-again/787379/44 "2017-05-26T13:26:41Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Ravenman, I want to make sure I understand you so please clarify. Your justification of Sessions lying about his contacts with a foreign government trying to undermine the presidential election is that he was deliberately lying but he knew he could get away with it, is that correct? He did lie, that is without question, he’s admitted it. He hasn’t claimed that he didn’t know he was lying either. No, you literally don’t understand anything at all. You’re clearly so blinded by anger about the whole situation that you can’t think straight. There are two matters related to Sessions: the testimony that he never had contact with Russians, and the matter of what he wrote on the form for his clearance. He quite clearly misled the Senate committee, period. I’m not sure if it was perjury or not, as perjury requires intent, but misleading a congressional committee on important matters like this is a very big deal. Then there’s the question of filling out the form for a security clearance. It is common for the agencies sponsoring the clearance to give additional instructions to applicants to answer the questions in certain ways. For example, it is extremely common for an agency to tell an applicant, “In questions which you are instructed to go back 7 years for employment/work/travel/business history, instead go back ten (or sometimes five) years.” This happens literally all the time. The DOJ has stated that the FBI investigator on Sessions’ application did not want a record of all his official meetings with foreign agents. This strikes me as a very reasonable instruction: the investigatory value of probably hundreds of meetings over several decades of his Senate career is probably zero. ETA: and in any case, if the FBI investigator later became concerned about matters that were not included on the form, they use a special technique. They go back and ask the applicant to provide more information. I bet you the vast majority of applicants for security clearances are asked to provide more information on some topic or another after the SF-86 is submitted. As I said in an earlier post, Sessions’ meeting with the Russian Ambassador at the RNC is an arguable case. Maybe they talked about official business, in which case I see no issue with it being left off of the form. If they talked about other things, then it should have been listed. Even if it should have been listed, I can see a reasonable case that this was simply an error on Sessions’ part, and not double-dog ultra perjury of the ninth degree, as you accuse him of. Contrast Sessions not including official meetings on his SF-86, apparently per FBI direction, with Flynn and Kushner. Flynn concealed payments from foreign sources, which is a huge deal, and I cannot find any reasonable justification for doing so other than outright perjury. And Kushner also failed to declare foreign meetings that were not held in any official capacity, which is very obviously an important part of a background investigation. I’m not sure if Kushner’s actions constitute perjury, which is possible, or his gross and shocking incompetence, which is also a plausible explaination. I anxiously await your incoherent reply in which you distort or fail to understand anything that I’ve written. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2017, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/session-lies-again/787379/45 "2017-05-26T13:32:33Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > No, you literally don’t understand anything at all. You’re clearly so blinded by anger about the whole situation that you can’t think straight. > > … No need to copy your whole post, you just agreed with what I said. He lied. And you say he did it because he could get away with it. So either dispute that he lied or provide some other explanation for his lies. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2017, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/session-lies-again/787379/46 "2017-05-26T13:34:28Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > No need to copy your whole post, you just agreed with what I said. He lied. And you say he did it because he could get away with it. So either dispute that he lied or provide some other explanation for his lies. You never disappoint me in my low expectations of you. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2017, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/session-lies-again/787379/47 "2017-05-26T13:35:34Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > …Then there’s the question of filling out the form for a security clearance. It is common for the agencies sponsoring the clearance to give additional instructions to applicants to answer the questions in certain ways. For example, it is extremely common for an agency to tell an applicant, “In questions which you are instructed to go back 7 years for employment/work/travel/business history, instead go back ten (or sometimes five) years.” _This happens literally all the time._… Emphasis skeptically added. Sez who? You seem to be saying he had a permission slip, a hall pass. Was it an actual physical document, or some sort of presumption? Was he _instructed_ to do what he did, he has the instructions at this fingertips? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2017, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/session-lies-again/787379/48 "2017-05-26T13:45:31Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > You never disappoint me in my low expectations of you. You’re disappointed because I pointed out what you are doing and you can’t deny it. You can’t dispute my points and you are doing nothing but resorting to ad hominem attacks as a result. You cannot dispute that he lied and you can’t dispute that he did it because he could get away with it. ---
**Author:** ![Paranoid\_Randroid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/paranoid_randroid/32/18_2.png) [@Paranoid\_Randroid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paranoid_Randroid)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2017, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/session-lies-again/787379/49 "2017-05-26T13:58:42Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > You’re disappointed because I pointed out what you are doing and you can’t deny it. You can’t dispute my points and you are doing nothing but resorting to ad hominem attacks as a result. You cannot dispute that he lied and you can’t dispute that he did it because he could get away with it. I’m not following. I understand **Ravenman** ’s contention to be that Sessions did not _necessarily_ lie (depending on the content of the meetings), but had in fact been instructed that it was not necessary to include all of the countless encounters he had with foreign nationals over the course of seven or ten years. This seems fairly reasonable and comports with my experience of an acquaintance being investigated for top secret clearance. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2017, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/session-lies-again/787379/50 "2017-05-26T13:59:00Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Emphasis skeptically added. Sez who? You can google yourself for the specific example I used. Try “Sf-86 ten years” without quotes. > [@](#): > > You seem to be saying he had a permission slip, a hall pass. Was it an actual physical document, or some sort of presumption? Was he _instructed_ to do what he did, he has the instructions at this fingertips? When I was told to answer certain questions in particular ways, the guidance was in fact written. I don’t know the specifics in this case, other than the DOJ press release that said that the FBI investigator gave certain directions. I would assume those instructions would be memorialized somewhere. But the general proposition that the FBI would give additional instructions on how to answer certain questions in ways that the form doesn’t specifically direct is about as surprising to me as a claim that McDonald’s adds salt to its food. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2017, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/session-lies-again/787379/51 "2017-05-26T14:00:29Z")
> [@Paranoid\_Randroid](#): > > I’m not following. I understand **Ravenman** ’s contention to be that Sessions did not _necessarily_ lie (depending on the content of the meetings), but had in fact been instructed that it was not necessary to include all of the countless encounters he had with foreign nationals over the course of seven or ten years. This seems fairly reasonable and comports with my experience of an acquaintance being investigated for top secret clearance. You’re not following because **Tripolar** is spouting nonsense: he’s disagreeing with me by claiming that I’m agreeing with him. You understand me perfectly. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2017, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/session-lies-again/787379/52 "2017-05-26T14:01:31Z")
> [@Paranoid\_Randroid](#): > > I’m not following. I understand **Ravenman** ’s contention to be that Sessions did not _necessarily_ lie (depending on the content of the meetings), but had in fact been instructed that it was not necessary to include all of the countless encounters he had with foreign nationals over the course of seven or ten years. This seems fairly reasonable and comports with my experience of an acquaintance being investigated for top secret clearance. Sessions doesn’t deny that he lied. You and that other guy and Sessions are all saying that it’s ok that he lied. Why do you defend someone in those circumstances? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2017, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/session-lies-again/787379/53 "2017-05-26T14:06:11Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Sessions doesn’t deny that he lied. You and that other guy and Sessions are all saying that it’s ok that he lied. Why do you defend someone in those circumstances? Sessions denies that he filled out the form improperly. With the exception of the question of whether he should have disclosed the RNC meeting, which is an open question, it appears very likely that he did fill out the form correctly. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2017, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/session-lies-again/787379/54 "2017-05-26T14:16:24Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Sessions denies that he filled out the form improperly. With the exception of the question of whether he should have disclosed the RNC meeting, which is an open question, it appears very likely that he did fill out the form correctly. So you agree with me then. He lied but you agree with Sessions that it was ok to lie. ---
**Author:** ![Snarky\_Kong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a183cd/32.png) [@Snarky\_Kong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snarky_Kong)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2017, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/session-lies-again/787379/55 "2017-05-26T14:23:48Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > So you agree with me then. He lied but you agree with Sessions that it was ok to lie. You have a form to fill out. The instructions are to be honest, but to defer to your boss if there are things you’re not sure about. Question 1 asks if you’ve ever stolen from work. You ask your boss if sticky notes count. He says only list things that are worth at least $100. You write that you haven’t stolen. Did you just lie? Or did you accurately answer the question with the reading you were instructed to take? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2017, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/session-lies-again/787379/56 "2017-05-26T14:49:19Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > So you agree with me then. He lied but you agree with Sessions that it was ok to lie. Frankly, I think your lies in the last few posts you’ve made are more bold than what Sessions did in his form. You are claiming that Sessions agrees with the charge that he lied on the form, you are claiming that I agree with you, and you are claiming that several other posters are saying that lies are okay. You either are delusional or know that you’re misrepresenting lots of things, which makes you very dishonest. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2017, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/session-lies-again/787379/57 "2017-05-26T14:52:54Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > You can google yourself for the specific example I used. Try “Sf-86 ten years” without quotes… I do not doubt that you quoted correctly. To these eyes, that would appear to address a relatively minor issue, like: “On this form, assume ten years rather than the given seven.” Whoopity fucka doo. You want us to accept that his is essentially the same as permitting a falsehood, rather then a mere procedural issue. Challenged on that, you repeat the same quote and insist that its says what you claim it says. The article I quoted mentions a named expert who’s interpretation differs from yours, and you offer no rebuttal, nor even comment. So, the “sez who”, apparently, is you. > [@](#): > > …When I was told to answer certain questions in particular ways, the guidance was in fact written. I don’t know the specifics in this case, other than the DOJ press release that said that the FBI investigator gave certain directions. I would assume those instructions would be memorialized somewhere… Ah! Well and good, has any such documentation been produced? As rock solid foundation for argument, “assume” is a mite weak. > [@](#): > > …But the general proposition that the FBI would give additional instructions on how to answer certain questions in ways that the form doesn’t specifically direct is about as surprising to me as a claim that McDonald’s adds salt to its food. So, you are not surprised that your assumption supports your case. I can see why you think you are right, but can’t see why I should. For all practical purposes, your assumption\* is\* your case. An interpretation that is rebutted by a cited expert. OK, your expertise outweighs his? Based on what, exactly? Can you break that down so that someone of lesser intellect, like myself, might understand? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2017, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/session-lies-again/787379/58 "2017-05-26T15:37:56Z")
I love it when you get all debate-team-y. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2017, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/session-lies-again/787379/59 "2017-05-26T15:41:55Z")
I sneer upon jealousy from the Audio Visual Club. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2017, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/session-lies-again/787379/60 "2017-05-26T15:50:19Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I do not doubt that you quoted correctly. To these eyes, that would appear to address a relatively minor issue, like: “On this form, assume ten years rather than the given seven.” Whoopity fucka doo. > > You want us to accept that his is essentially the same as permitting a falsehood, rather then a mere procedural issue. Let’s say the investigator tells an applicant to fill in five years of work history rather than seven as instructed on the form. The applicant complies. Has the applicant committed a falsehood? > [@](#): > > Ah! Well and good, has any such documentation been produced? As rock solid foundation for argument, “assume” is a mite weak. I’m commenting on this case, not investigating it. Other than the DOJ statement that the FBI investigator instructed Sessions on how to fill out the form – which again, seems totally routine – I don’t know of any other documents out there. Are you assuming that the DOJ is lying in stating that the FBI investigator gave such instructions? As a rock solid foundation for argument, “assume” is a mite weak. > [@](#): > > So, you are not surprised that your assumption supports your case. In this thread, I’ve stated that Sessions not including official meetings on his form, as apparently instructed, is not surprising in the least to me. I’ve said that his RNC meeting is questionable, in that it’s not clear whether it should have been disclosed or not. I’ve also criticized Flynn and Kushner in no uncertain terms. You’ve basically accused me of having an agenda to defend Sessions, and making my assumptions fit that case. Why on the world do you think I’d defend Sessions and bend my arguments to support that case, if I’m going to criticize other Republicans for superficially similar, but in fact more serious, misdeeds? It sure seems like you’re saying I have some underlying, deceitful interest in defending Sessions. I can’t imagine what you assess my agenda to be, exactly. > [@](#): > > OK, your expertise outweighs his? Based on what, exactly? Can you break that down so that someone of lesser intellect, like myself, might understand? Well, I bet I’ve filled out these forms way more than you, and I’ve received written instructions to fill things out in a certain way, and I’ve also asked questions about whether certain things should be included or not, and I’ve relied on that guidance to fill out the form. I’m certain that literally millions of other Americans who have held security clearances have also relied on the advice of the FBI, OPM investigators, or others on how to fill out these forms correctly, in a spirit of cooperation and accuracy. I don’t think that vast numbers of Americans over the years who relied on the advice of professionals should be accused of lying because the followed specific instructions rather than a general form. To the extent that Sessions did the same thing – again with the caveat that I’m not so sure about the RNC meeting – he shouldn’t be accused of wrongdoing for what, in my experience, is a rather routine matter of following supplemental instructions from the agency responsible for carrying out the investigation. If evidence comes to light that the FBI gave Sessions no such instructions, then that changes everything. But I don’t start with the assumption that the FBI and DOJ are lying about having given supplementary instructions, which seems to be a difference between you and I. ETA: on the question about the lawyer’s opinion on this matter, I can only offer that if someone is consulting an attorney on how to fill out an SF-86, they’ve got problems; and the lawyer’s advice may be tainted by his experience dealing with sketchy applicants. (Not that Sessions isn’t sketchy.) I’m at a loss for why the lawyer would advise someone to disregard the instructions of the FBI in filling out the form. It doesn’t make a lick of sense to me. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/session-lies-again/787379.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/session-lies-again/787379.md?page=4)