Jeff Sessions met with Russian Ambassador twice in 2016

[Jun]

Sessions was asked at the hearing if he met with Russians in respect to the campaign. He answered that he never talked to the Russians about the campaign. He never denied talking to the Russians. All the questions asked of him where in the form of, did you ever talk to russians about this, or that. Which he answered that he never talked to the russians about this or that. It's all apart of the public record. He never claimed to have never met with them. No one ever asked him if he ever met with them, period, without any stipulations about what it was about. Saying he was is just a flat out lie on your part. To prove perjury on Sessions part you have to prove that the meetings were to discuss things related to the campaign as opposed to discussions related to his duties on the Senate armed services committee. So unless there were recordings made of his meeting, perjury can't be proved. Maybe he did meet about the campaign, maybe he did lie. But short of recordings of his meeting, it can't be proven.

I wonder if the democrats intentionally asked him about meeting Russians about the campaign, with the intention of coming back and using it against him. They knew he would answer that he didn't meet with them about the campaign, but did meet with the Russian ambassador. So they new he would deny meeting Russians about the campaign, and than could play politics with his answer.

He did not specify that he did not speak to the Russians about the campaign. He simply said he didn't speak to them. Period. Context is important, but how you say it is just as important; leaving out that context is the main issue here, and the driving force behind the press for an investigation.

[Skroe]

You'll have to ask him at his Senate Intelligence Committee hearing.

I for one, can't wait for Trump's rage post.

[Breccia]

I for one, can't wait for Trump's rage post.

He doesn't know, it wasn't posted on Breitbart.

[Orbitus]

Sessions was asked at the hearing if he met with Russians in respect to the campaign. He answered that he never talked to the Russians about the campaign. He never denied talking to the Russians. All the questions asked of him where in the form of, did you ever talk to russians about this, or that. Which he answered that he never talked to the russians about this or that. It's all apart of the public record. He never claimed to have never met with them. No one ever asked him if he ever met with them, period, without any stipulations about what it was about. Saying he was is just a flat out lie on your part. To prove perjury on Sessions part you have to prove that the meetings were to discuss things related to the campaign as opposed to discussions related to his duties on the Senate armed services committee. So unless there were recordings made of his meeting, perjury can't be proved. Maybe he did meet about the campaign, maybe he did lie. But short of recordings of his meeting, it can't be proven.

I wonder if the democrats intentionally asked him about meeting Russians about the campaign, with the intention of coming back and using it against him. They knew he would answer that he didn't meet with them about the campaign, but did meet with the Russian ambassador. So they new he would deny meeting Russians about the campaign, and than could play politics with his answer.

As Jun already stated, he FREELY said during the cabinet confirmation hearings that he NEVER met with the Russians. Sorry, but reality doesn't agree with you. Then as @Jedi Batman stated, Sessions met with them TWICE. Once at the RNC, have no fucking clue why the Russians would be at the RNC but whatever. Even if the Obama administration directed them there. Then the 2nd one was behind closed doors, off the record. Both of them using Trump campaign funds. We KNOW this. But you casually glossed over that fact.

[Cthulhu 2020]

As Jun already stated, he FREELY said during the cabinet confirmation hearings that he NEVER met with the Russians. Sorry, but reality doesn't agree with you. Then as @Jedi Batman stated, Sessions met with them TWICE. Once at the RNC, have no fucking clue why the Russians would be at the RNC but whatever. Even if the Obama administration directed them there. Then the 2nd one was behind closed doors, off the record. Both of them using Trump campaign funds. We KNOW this. But you casually glossed over that fact.

Their denials pretty much rely upon denying the facts. But it seems Trump has successfully done what he set out to do. He changed the political narrative. Nobody seems to care about Session lying under oath even though we now know that he not only met with Russians after denying it, but he did so off the record (Senators meeting with ambassadors have a record of the meeting), and in addition, he used Trump campaign funds.

People say it's not unusual for senators to meet with ambassadors. What is unusual is him meeting off the record, behind closed doors, using Trump campaign funds for the meeting where he had to travel.

But now nobody gives a fuck. Sessions lying under oath and clearly meeting with Russian ambassadors in secret has been successfully swept under the rug. What a shame. As much as Republicans were screaming and crying about corruption and pay to play, Trump's regime is the most swampy pay to play mess that we have ever seen. And now the Trumpkins actually endorse it - after they completely lambasted and crucified Hillary for it. Why? Cause it's their guy of course.

They're all massive hypocrites.

[Bighud44]

The Washington Post called every single other member of the SAFC and asked if they met the Russian Ambassador in 2016.

All twenty five of them said no.

And Sessions has not met with the Russian Ambassador during any SAFC official meeting in 2016. Once was at the RNC,which isn't great in and of itself, but it was 100% not SAFC business. The other was September 8th, behind closed doors, and alone. It was never on any SAFC to-do list, schedule, or calendar. No other SAFC members were involved or even invited, and none of them since have said what the meeting was about -- even GOP members -- which implies Sessions never told them. And it was at the peak of Russian hacking interference. The meeting was not set up by Obama, or for that matter, anyone else but Sessions. It was a call made after Trump's Sept 7th interview with Matt Lauer, in which Trump called Putin a better leader than Obama, then gushed like a schoolgirl about that one time Putin called him brilliant.

Which Putin denied.

Neither you nor Sessions have any evidence that this was a pre-planned and/or Obama-admin-suggested call/meeting. If such evidence existed, either he, or the other GOP members of the SAFC, would have volunteered it in his defense. And the fact that he, and he alone, did it behind closed doors -- twice -- is not helping his cause. I honestly don't think you can back your statement up, but I'm hoping you'll try.

And read a little more. Multiple news sites are not publicizing picture and visits of EVERY congressman and woman. But get your news from 1 Liberal source and run off the cliff with all the other Liberals.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...sador-n2293822

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...at_normal.html

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/03/mcc...-russian-flub/

See I can post a conservative leaning site disputing everything, with evidence, that your lie about the SAFC doesn't meet with Russia. But of course Republicans are to blame for Democrats Tweets and pictures showing they actually DID meet with Russia.

[Orbitus]

And read a little more. Multiple news sites are not publicizing picture and visits of EVERY congressman and woman. But get your news from 1 Liberal source and run off the cliff with all the other Liberals.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...sador-n2293822

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...at_normal.html

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/03/mcc...-russian-flub/

See I can post a conservative leaning site disputing everything, with evidence, that your lie about the SAFC doesn't meet with Russia. But of course Republicans are to blame for Democrats Tweets and pictures showing they actually DID meet with Russia.

See, the problem is, they didn't lie about not meeting a Russian ambassador under oath. And they also didn't meet with the ambassador as a campaign surrogate like Sessions did. We know he did because he was reimbursed by the Trump campaign for both of his meetings. If he was meeting them as a Senator for the Armed Forces Committee and used their accounts and didn't lie about it under oath, he probably would have been fine. But you making excuses for him, doesn't help him. It just makes you look fucking ignorant.

[Shalcker]

See, the problem is, they didn't lie about not meeting a Russian ambassador under oath. And they also didn't meet with the ambassador as a campaign surrogate like Sessions did. We know he did because he was reimbursed by the Trump campaign for both of his meetings. If he was meeting them as a Senator for the Armed Forces Committee and used their accounts and didn't lie about it under oath, he probably would have been fine. But you making excuses for him, doesn't help him. It just makes you look fucking ignorant.

The one at convention was meeting with group of ambassadors, and the one private was set up by Obama's State department, so it's pretty hard to see any kind of conspiracy with Russia here.

[Orbitus]

The one at convention was meeting with group of ambassadors, and the one private was set up by Obama's State department, so it's pretty hard to see any kind of conspiracy with Russia here.

Wrong. The one at the convention was set up by the Obama administration who sent them there. The second one, was supposedly for him being part of the Senate Armed Forces Committee. Why would he need to meet with the ambassador as part of the SAFC? None of the others ever did. But you are a Putin Apologist, I don't expect a conversation to be truthful with you.

[Shalcker]

Wrong. The one at the convention was set up by the Obama administration who sent them there. The second one, was supposedly for him being part of the Senate Armed Forces Committee. Why would he need to meet with the ambassador as part of the SAFC? None of the others ever did.

But they actually did, so this is wrong too.

[Orbitus]

But they actually did, so this is wrong too.

So, doesn't change the fact that he lied about it under oath.

[Elim Garak]

So, doesn't change the fact that he lied about it under oath.

That's just wishful thinking