Read the Questions – WaPo creates Sessions media firestorm over nothing
Sessions answered “No” to questions about campaign contacts with Russian Ambassador
The witch hunt against President Donald Trump and his administration continues in the mainstream media. Last night, The Washington Post reported that Attorney General Jeff Sessions spoke to the Russian ambassador twice during the campaign, which he did not mention during his confirmation hearing.
Thing is, the article disproves the newspaper’s thesis. Sen. Patrick Leahy (VT) asked Sessions if he had been in contact with any Russian government officials about the 2016 election. Sessions said no.
Here is the headline:
Talk about click bait. Like I said, the article completely disproves the headline. But publications know that most people will not read past the headline. If they do, they may not make it very far, so go ahead and bury the lede.
Which is exactly what The Washington Post did four paragraphs down.
Read the question again:
Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) specifically asked if Sessions spoke to any Russian officials ABOUT THE 2016 ELECTION. He did not ask if Sessions spoke to Russian officials and left it at that. The Post even admitted as such IN THE ARTICLE:
Let me repeat myself: Leahy and Franken specifically asked about Russian communications with members of Trump’s campaign team, not as a senator.
If Franken and Leahy simply asked Sessions, “Did you have any communications with Russian officials?” then they would have a case. But the questions were specifically about Trump’s campaign team.
Former Harvard Law Prof can't read, ignores "about the 2016 election" https://t.co/8M9ioNxXhG
— Legal Insurrection (@LegInsurrection) March 2, 2017
It's a simple q: "Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election?"
— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) March 2, 2017
Sessions released his statement last night:
Statement from Attorney General Sessions: pic.twitter.com/kZic12DW0R
— Sarah Isgur Flores (@whignewtons) March 2, 2017
Justice officials stated that Sessions met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak “in his capacity as a member of the armed services panel rather than in his role as a Trump campaign surrogate.” Flores reminds the Post that the questions towards Sessions addressed of only Russia.
Flores also mentioned that Sessions met with over 25 ambassadors in 2016: British, Korean, Japanese, Polish, Indian, Chinese, Canadian, Australian and German.
Sessions denied he spoke with Kislyak about the election, but it is troubling that he cannot recall what the two spoke about in the meeting.
But of course the Democrats have gone crazy, claiming Sessions perjured himself and that he should resign. Ironically, these are the same people who confirmed Eric Holder and turned a blind eye on Operation Fast and Furious. But did he perjure himself? No:
Sessions, as a Senator on the Armed Services Committee, met with over 20 ambassadors in 2016. One of them was the Russian ambassador. There is no evidence, at all, Sessions met with the ambassador to review Trump campaign strategy, or anything of the sort. The suggestion that our Senators should not be meeting with representatives of foreign governments is ludicrous, especially coming from people who championed the Clinton Foundation meeting with foreign governments frequently to fund their Clinton Foundation and personal enrichment.
The criminal law only prohibits lying to Congress under two statutes — 18 USC 1621 ands 18 USC 1001. Section 1621 requires a person “willfully and contrary” to a sworn oath “subscribe a material matter” which is both false and the person knows to be false. Section 1001 is basically the same, without certain tribunal prerequisites: it also requires the government prove a person willfully made a materially false statement. This requires three elements: first, a false statement; second, the false statement be “material”; and third, the false statement be made “knowingly” and “willfully.” A statement is not false if it can be interpreted in an innocent manner. A statement is not material if it is not particularly relevant to the subject of the inquiry. Willfully is a very high standard of proof: it requires the person know they are committing the crime, and do so anyway. None of the three exist as to Sessions.
The White House has backed Sessions against the smear. In its morning communications briefing, the White House provided some more facts against the Democrats and media’s claims:
Sessions spoke to the Russian ambassador TWICE in 2016, which makes the Post and Democrats think that’s enough evidence that he perjured himself and he should resign. Others on the Senate Armed Forces Committee stated that they never met with the Russian ambassador last year. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) even said she has NEVER met with a Russian ambassador. Oh, Kemberlee reports otherwise:
Off to meeting w/Russian Ambassador. Upset about the arbitrary/cruel decision to end all US adoptions,even those in process.
— Claire McCaskill (@clairecmc) January 30, 2013
And here is picture proof of @clairecmc meeting Russian ambassador. Damn the internet amirite Claire?! #mosen pic.twitter.com/lYhRpJ6BY2
— Ian Prior (@iprior1177) March 2, 2017
Oh so you never met with him in “your capacity” as Armed Services member. I was confused by your use of the one word sentence “EVER.” #mosen https://t.co/hDZ1sktl79
— Ian Prior (@iprior1177) March 2, 2017
.@ericgeller @LouiseMensch So that makes everyone he ever met a spy? Like @clairecmc? https://t.co/1woAwNFRmI
— Legal Insurrection (@LegInsurrection) March 2, 2017
Fellow Republicans, though, have now called for Sessions to recuse himself and appoint a special prosecutor if the Department of Justice starts an investigation into possible Russian interference with our presidential election:
Republicans like former Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) are calling on Sessions to step aside so an independent review of Russian meddling into the election can take place with the full confidence of the American people.
“We need an independent review by a credible third party and that Attorney General Sessions should recuse himself from any investigation into Russia,” Issa said. “We need a clear-eyed view of what the Russians actually did so that all Americans can have faith in our institutions.”
Several House Republicans from swing districts, including Reps. Martha McSally (R-Ariz.), Ryan Costello (R-Pa.), Mike Coffman (R-Colo.), and Frank LoBiondo (R-N.J.), who is on the House Intelligence Committee, also joined the calls for Sessions to recuse himself.
Sessions spoke with NBC News about this fiasco and said he will recuse himself if he has to:
“I have said whenever it’s appropriate, I will recuse myself,” he said. “There’s no doubt about that.”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Dems / uniparty cannot have AG Sessions prosecuting them for their most likely MANY illegal actions or misdeeds…..
HANG IN THERE MR. SESSIONS….. We.The.People believe in you….
Damned right!
I am honestly starting to lament the demise of the national media somewhat. There evidence of any journalism – even with obvious bias – is becoming more scant. From cable news to print media to broadcast news and entertainment (one in the same?), we are now in an era of pure tabloids. Gossipy stuff. All that matters is a attention grabbing headline. Analysis, on the record sources, etc., are no longer of any value. Retractions mean nothing and are not often forthcoming. All that matters to the media nowadays is the style. Not the content.
And so they are flush with satisfaction with every hit piece that gets debunked out of the gate. It 100% delivers the meme and the style points.
how many time did Hilary use the phase ‘I don’t remember’ or I can’t remember’ or something to that effect testifying in Congress. Don’t remember too much of an uproar over that.
About the same number of times John Mitchell said “I do not recall”?
Mitchell was never a major party’s candidate for president. Nobody cares about Mitchell, he wasn’t going anywhere. It’s not the lying, it’s who is lying to what do they aspire?
Stay the course AG Sessions. You have done nothing for which recusal is required or even implied. This is just another case of the hyenas are nipping at the lion’s heels. Remember:
Non Carborundum Illegitimai!” [Don’t Let the Bastards Wear You Down!]
Rush gave many of the facts of this on his show. This is ridiculous the these “Republicans” can go off half-cocked without even looking at any reply or facts about this.
These Dems are shaken to their core that as Attorney General, Mr Sessions will enforce the law.
The Democrats are shaken to their core because of this…
“No One Mentions That The Russian Trail Leads To Democratic Lobbyists”
http://archive.is/8idbN
Was there a special prosecutor appointed at all at any point in the last eight years?
If not, why all of the sudden a month into the next administration, does it suddenly become The Most Important Thing In The Universe?
(Yes, because Trump, I know.)
Democrats gonna be Democrats. Swamp critters … and they’re frenzied ( weak GOPe go-alongs aren’t helping either)
Just watch. If the DOJ goes after any Dem, much less the Clintons, it will be WaPo story screaming ” retribution crusade by angry AG Sessions!” He must be impeached! Just watch. This is slimeball politics.
AG Sessions, through his recusal, gives the looneys exactly what they want. Republicans cave again.
Garbage. He didn’t give them anything. If there’s ever a decision to be made at his level about an investigation into these matters, he should recuse himself, and let the decision be made by someone working for him, whose name hasn’t come up in this regard. That doesn’t help the Democrats, it’s just the right thing to do. Whoever makes the decision will not be a Democrat.
Session’s job was to root out Obama’s embeds in the DOJ. Instead, Session’s gave his accusers credibility. “Oh look, there must be something to the charges; Session’s is bowing out of the investigation.”
Agreed. Recusal is the correct course with respect to any investigation that *might* take place with respect to the Trump presidential campaign.
Since there is zero evidence of anything improper, there is no investigation to begin with. Allegations by the “media”, fake news by the “media” are not cause for investigation.
You are assuming that there has been no investigation underway. You noticed, I’m sure, how careful Sessions was avoiding the subject when asked.
“… it is troubling that he cannot recall what the two spoke about in the meeting.”
No it’s not. Forgetting meetings where nothing of importance happened is NORMAL. Don’t go looking for trouble that isn’t there.
“Grandchildren. We were talking about our grandchildren. And golf.”
Mister Trump needs to have another sit down face to face talk with his Republican Party legislators and remind them that ‘We Won’. Then he needs to emphasize to them that they need to stop acting like Democrat surrogates, piling on when the Dems say the ‘sky is falling’. These Republicans seem so eager to be the first one to surrender to the DEMs and the Leftist media over any accusation. Mister Trump should start with Issa and Portman.
Washington Post Reporter: Democrats ‘Are Overplaying Their Hand’ on Sessions
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/02/washington-post-reporter-democrats-overplaying-hand-sessions/
What Jeff Sessions said about Russia, and when
By Philip Bump March 2
https://archive.is/AamjU
People are asking, why this, now? Are they in a panic over Trump’s speech, or is it a distraction from another story?
GOP wants to eliminate shadowy DOJ slush fund bankrolling leftist groups
By Melissa Jacobs Published March 01, 2017
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/01/gop-wants-to-eliminate-shadowy-doj-slush-fund-bankrolling-leftist-groups.html
I’m not so sure the real goal was to get Sessions to resign. There is real value to the Democrats to remove Trump’s people from the “investigation” into Russia. With nobody to oversee what they’re doing they and their Deep State allies in the intelligence agencies can fabricate evidence or ignore/destroy evidence contrary to the preferred narrative.
What Russian “meddling”?