Jeff Sessions' IC Testimony (Tue. 13th)

[Deletedaccount1]

Tremendous testimony.

[fengosa]

I'm sorry but, you are just incorrect. You cannot convict solely on one witness testimony, written or not. If you could, we could just accuse anyone of a crime and get them put in jail. Do you not understand that?

As others have pointed out this isn't correct but even so there is more evidence than Comey's testimony. Public statements from Trump and his surrogates, intercepts of Kisliyak and the administration lying about intelligence it's already been briefed on will all be used as evidence.

- - - Updated - - -

Tremendous testimony.

Sessions did a decent job of not incriminating himself but at lot of his non answers were obvious deflection and poorly explained. He's not going to get the benefit of the doubt after having already lied about having contact with the Russians. I wouldn't go as far as tremendous.

[Felya]

Was more firing back at Satimy's claims to discredit Harris.

I understood, I just think discussing credentials between the two is pointless.

[GreenJesus]

As others have pointed out this isn't correct but even so there is more evidence than Comey's testimony. Public statements from Trump and his surrogates, intercepts of Kisliyak and the administration lying about intelligence it's already been briefed on will all be used as evidence.

- - - Updated - - -



Sessions did a decent job of not incriminating himself but at lot of his non answers were obvious deflection and poorly explained. He's not going to get the benefit of the doubt after having already lied about having contact with the Russians. I wouldn't go as far as tremendous.

But his meetings were public record and in his schedule. Whenever he was asked about meetings the context was about Russia collusion.

[Cthulhu 2020]

So the tl;dr of sessions hearing was:

"I do not recall"

and

"I'm going to make up a situation where I don't have to answer questions under oath that might reveal my criminal activities by saying the president MIGHT want to invoke executive privilege about what my answer would be."

[Shadowferal]

Pretty much a waste of time.
Comey came out shining.
Sessions...came out..no better than he went in. Which means he's still not trusted.

[fengosa]

But his meetings were public record and in his schedule. Whenever he was asked about meetings the context was about Russia collusion.

I thought Sessions said 'I did not have communications with Russians'

[Bullettime]

But his meetings were public record and in his schedule. Whenever he was asked about meetings the context was about Russia collusion.

Ehhh McCain of all people punched holes in that story though. Basically, Sessions claimed his previously undisclosed Russian meetings were done as part of his committee position but McCain made mention that Sessions never gave a rats ass about anything involving Russia or Ukraine while serving with him on the AFC so his sudden interest and having private meetings with Kislyak are a huge turn.

edit: It'd be like if say you dated a girl who you knew to absolutely hate and avoid sports but then you found out she secretly went to a football game with another guy and then argued after you found out "but I like football!" It doesn't add up.

- - - Updated - - -

I normally dislike Vox articles but this one had some valid points and sourcing.

Basically, law experts confirming that Sessions should have disclosed the information (edit: based on precedent set from US vs Nixon determining usage of executive privilege in a criminal matter) and one expert saying that technically there is precedent for withholding, the committee could/should demand an answer on the topics from the White House or Sessions could be drug back on the stand and given no choice if given an insufficient reply.

This is why Rogers sucked it up and went back to the committee in a closed hearing.

[Mormolyce]

Pretty much a waste of time.
Comey came out shining.
Sessions...came out..no better than he went in. Which means he's still not trusted.

Well, he might've perjured himself. Again. We'll probably find out in a few months.

[ati87]

Ehhh McCain of all people punched holes in that story though. Basically, Sessions claimed his previously undisclosed Russian meetings were done as part of his committee position but McCain made mention that Sessions never gave a rats ass about anything involving Russia or Ukraine while serving with him on the AFC so his sudden interest and having private meetings with Kislyak are a huge turn.

edit: It'd be like if say you dated a girl who you knew to absolutely hate and avoid sports but then you found out she secretly went to a football game with another guy and then argued after you found out "but I like football!" It doesn't add up.

- - - Updated - - -

I normally dislike Vox articles but this one had some valid points and sourcing.

Basically, law experts confirming that Sessions should have disclosed the information (edit: based on precedent set from US vs Nixon determining usage of executive privilege in a criminal matter) and one expert saying that technically there is precedent for withholding, the committee could/should demand an answer on the topics from the White House or Sessions could be drug back on the stand and given no choice if given an insufficient reply.

This is why Rogers sucked it up and went back to the committee in a closed hearing.

I find his argument ''met with person A as a member of the senate'' kind of a weird argument. You would think that a senator doesn't meat up with ambassadors solo without any other senators if you do that as a senator.

[Bullettime]

I find his argument ''met with person A as a member of the senate'' kind of a weird argument. You would think that a senator doesn't meat up with ambassadors solo without any other senators if you do that as a senator.

It's not unheard of, there's just proper channels to go through to schedule and document the meetings. McCain does it all the time. McCain's comments were concerning because he made it clear as a member of the AFC with Sessions that Sessions never had any interest in Russia or Ukraine, never considered Russia a threat, and never requested any hearings over Russian related matters but then goes on to have two private meetings with Kislyak that he claims were done as part of his duties.

It doesn't add up.

[Felya]

It's not unheard of, there's just proper channels to go through to schedule and document the meetings. McCain does it all the time. McCain's comments were concerning because he made it clear as a member of the AFC with Sessions that Sessions never had any interest in Russia or Ukraine, never considered Russia a threat, and never requested any hearings over Russian related matters but then goes on to have two private meetings with Kislyak that he claims were done as part of his duties.

It doesn't add up.

The timeline is also interesting:

September 5th - Obama at a meeting in China, tells Putin to stop attacking US and that there will be grave consequences if they don't.
September 8th - Sessions meets Kislyak in his office.

If Sessions did meet for official government reasons, what was he discussing 3 days after Obama threatens Russia with grave consequences if they don't stop their attacks, in front of leaders of other countries? Would reassuring Russia that if Trump wins, they will not follow through on Obama's threat made 3 days earlier, count as campaign or official business?

- - - Updated - - -

But his meetings were public record and in his schedule. Whenever he was asked about meetings the context was about Russia collusion.

I don't understand how it is being known that Sessions had the meeting, but forgot about it when under oath and dealing specifically with Russian investigations, is helping your point. If it was such public knowledge, how did Sessions forget to mention it, while under oath? You are accusing Sessions of having amnesia that strikes only under oath?

[Bullettime]

Don't forget the trips to meet Kislyak were not funded by tax payer dollars but Trump campaign funds. Why would he be beating with Kislyak for official senate business but using campaign funds? There was also no warning in advance that he was planning on said meeting.

So all of that on top of McCain's testimony pretty much shot holes through his story with a damn machine gun.

[NYC17]

Don't forget the trips to meet Kislyak were not funded by tax payer dollars but Trump campaign funds. Why would he be beating with Kislyak for official senate business but using campaign funds? There was also no warning in advance that he was planning on said meeting.

So all of that on top of McCain's testimony pretty much shot holes through his story with a damn machine gun.

He's also the only member of the Armed Services Committee to meet with Kislyak. Seems like such a unique thing to occur and not have any memory of.

Seems legit.

[Kujako]

He's also the only member of the Armed Services Committee to meet with Kislyak. Seems like such a unique thing to occur and not have any memory of.

Seems legit.

Well he's clearly a magic Gnome, so Kislyak just said his name backwards.

[vondevon]

The timeline is also interesting:

September 5th - Obama at a meeting in China, tells Putin to stop attacking US and that there will be grave consequences if they don't.
September 8th - Sessions meets Kislyak in his office.

If Sessions did meet for official government reasons, what was he discussing 3 days after Obama threatens Russia with grave consequences if they don't stop their attacks, in front of leaders of other countries? Would reassuring Russia that if Trump wins, they will not follow through on Obama's threat made 3 days earlier, count as campaign or official business?

This is exactly the kind of timeline and pattern of denial that got Mike Flynn in trouble.
1. No meetings took place (that I can remember)
2. Okay, meetings happened but they were strictly within the scope of my duties outside the campaign.
3. Alright, alright... I was acting for the campaign, but we never discussed policy or sanctions.
4. Oh you mean you have recordings? Well... okay we talked Russia sanctions but is that really inappropriate?

As always (and especially with the president) this really comes down to a political question. We will continue to learn greater detail about the facts surrounding alleged inappropriate behavior, but at the end of it all, the true question is whether the behavior is seen to be inappropriate by 'the powers that be' and they be Republican.

- - - Updated - - -

I think Sessions has enough wiggle room that he won't get done for perjury. I also think that his testimony was very shaky and he didn't come across well. Meanwhile, we have reports of multiple memos from alphabet men regarding Trump's improper actions with regards to the Russia investigation. The biggest question is whether Sessions violated his recusal by participating in the firing of the man heading up the Russia investigation. Sessions should have known better than to participate in that action. If the DAG wants to give his reasons and sign on that's fine, but Sessions shouldn't have had anything to do with it. Just like he says it'd be improper for him to fire the special counsel who is investigating all of this. The fact that he didn't make that distinction with Comey tells me he's unfit for the office.

He made a fairly compelling point about how the recusal should not impair his ability to provide oversight to the FBI, including the hiring and firing of its leadership. However, that point would be far stronger if they had moved to replace Comey at the beginning of Trump's administration, rather than waiting for the Russia investigation to ramp up. Additionally, we have statements by Sessions himself showing that he viewed Comey's and the FBI's work favorably up until Trump pressured Sessions and Rosenstein to write their memos. I don't think Sessions has much of a leg to stand on for 'providing oversight to a dysfunctional organization' considering he signed on to axe the leadership without working to find or recommend a replacement. If you really want to improve the FBI, cutting off its head doesn't sound like a good way to do that.

[Mormolyce]

Aaaaaaaaaand perjury.

Lobbyist for Russian interests says he attended dinners hosted by Sessions
Richard Burt contradicts Jeff Sessions’ testimony that he didn’t believe he had contacts with lobbyists working for Russian interests during Trump’s campaign

An American lobbyist for Russian interests who helped craft an important foreign policy speech for Donald Trump has confirmed that he attended two dinners hosted by Jeff Sessions during the 2016 campaign, apparently contradicting the attorney general’s sworn testimony given this week.

Sessions testified under oath on Tuesday that he did not believe he had any contacts with lobbyists working for Russian interests over the course of Trump’s campaign. But Richard Burt, a former ambassador to Germany during the Reagan administration, who has represented Russian interests in Washington, told the Guardian that he could confirm previous media reports that stated he had contacts with Sessions at the time.

“I did attend two dinners with groups of former Republican foreign policy officials and Senator Sessions,” Burt said.

Asked whether Sessions was unfamiliar with Burt’s role as a lobbyist for Russian interests – a fact that is disclosed in public records – or had any reason to be confused about the issue, Burt told the Guardian that he did not know.

Several media reports published before Trump’s election in November noted that Burt advised then candidate Trump on his first major foreign policy speech, a role that brought him into contact with Sessions personally.

Burt, who previously served on the advisory board of Alfa Capital Partners, a private equity fund where Russia’s Alfa Bank was an investor and last year was lobbying on behalf of a pipeline company that is now controlled by Gazprom, Russia’s state-controlled energy conglomerate, first told Politico in October that he had been invited to two dinners that were hosted by Sessions last summer, at the height of the presidential campaign.

Sessions, a former senator for Alabama who was chairman of the Trump campaign’s national security committee, reportedly invited Burt so that he could discuss issues of national security and foreign policy.

When John McCain, the Republican senator from Arizona who is a frequent critic of Trump and Russian president Vladimir Putin, asked Sessions in a hearing this week before the Senate intelligence committee about whether the attorney general had ever had “any contacts with any representative, including any American lobbyist or agent of any Russian company” during the 2016 campaign, Sessions said he did not.

“I don’t believe so,” Sessions said.

Other outlets, including the New Yorker magazine and Reuters, also reported last year that Burt had contributed his views to Trump’s speech. When NPR interviewed Burt in May 2016 about the talk, he said he was “asked to provide a draft for that speech, and parts of that draft survived into the final [version]”.

The speech, delivered on 27 April 2016 at the Mayflower Hotel, was attended by Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak and is now at the heart of new questions about Sessions’ personal dealings with Russian officials. Sessions recused himself from oversight of the FBI’s investigation into possible collusion between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign in March after it emerged that he held two undisclosed meetings with the Russian ambassador last year.

In his explosive testimony before Congress earlier this month, former FBI director James Comey, who was fired by Trump, suggested that he had known that Sessions would eventually have to recuse himself from the Russia probe, but declined to explain the details in public.

Questions directed at Sessions by lawmakers days later – after they had privately been briefed by Comey – suggested it related to a third alleged encounter with Kislyak that had not been disclosed, this time at the Mayflower Hotel speech. In his confirmation hearing, Sessions had told lawmakers under oath that he had never had communication with Russian officials.

This week, in the latest hearing, Sessions said he may have “possibly” had an “encounter” with the Russian ambassador during a reception at the Mayflower, but could not recall any specific conversations.

The speech was hosted by the Center for the National Interest, a Washington thinktank. Burt sits on the group’s board of directors.

While Burt has not played a central role in the FBI and congressional investigation, Sessions’ response about his dealings with American lobbyists – which appears to contradict previous reports that Burt and Sessions communicated during the campaign – could invite more scrutiny of the attorney general’s testimony.

It is also possible that Sessions was not fully aware of Burt’s lobbying history, although Burt’s affiliation with Russian interests is fairly well known in Washington circles.

The former ambassador is managing director of the Europe and Eurasia practice at McLarty Associates. In that role, he’s served as a lobbyist for the New European Pipeline AG, the company behind Nord Stream II. At the time the work started, Gazprom, the Russian state-owned oil company, owned a 50% stake, but it now owns the entire entity. The pipeline, which is seen as making Europe more dependent on Russian energy exports, was opposed by the Obama administration.

Burt also serves on the board of Deutsche Bank’s closed-end fund group, according to his online biography.

The former ambassador and lobbyist appears to have recently sought to downplay his role in helping Trump to formulate the Mayflower speech, telling the Daily Beast earlier this year that he had transmitted his counsel through a third party intermediary.

In the speech, Trump said an “easing of tensions and improved relations with Russia – from a position of strength – is possible” and that “common sense says this cycle of hostility must end”.

The Department of Justice did not respond to a request for comment.

Asked about Burt and the exchange between McCain and Sessions, Carter Page, another former foreign policy adviser to Trump’s campaign and a central figure in the Russia investigation, said he found “the entire line of questioning to be near the pinnacle of witch hunt tactics”.

“In the grand scheme of things, the severe civil rights abuses by Clinton-Obama-Comey regime carried out against myself and other supporters of the Trump campaign in their illegal attempts to influence the 2016 election will help clarify how irrelevant all these petty side-questions are,” he said.

Page added that he was writing a book on his experience and that he was “still in discussions” with publishers.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ions-testimony

Well, he might've perjured himself. Again. We'll probably find out in a few months.

Wow I really underestimated the pace of current events...

[LaserSharkDFB]

Aaaaaaaaaand perjury.


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ions-testimony



Wow I really underestimated the pace of current events...

Meh, he covered his ass with enough 'I don't recall's that I doubt this will stick. The only thing that will really get him is something he wrote or said to someone else that contradicts his testimony.

[Edge-]

It's not perjury if he can't recall anything : 3

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video...83d_video.html

[Felya]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ions-testimony

Lobbyist for Russian interests says he attended dinners hosted by Sessions

Richard Burt contradicts Jeff Sessions’ testimony that he didn’t believe he had contacts with lobbyists working for Russian interests during Trump’s campaign