The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central Journalisming

Am I missing something. Is talking to a Russian ambassador illegal??? Also its not perjury if he isn't under oath. I don't think anyone was under oath.

The purpose of ambassadors is to confer with members of foreign governments, so no, talking with an ambassador is not illegal unless the conversation involves illegal acts, such as unauthorized transfer of classified information.

Sessions was under oath, but in the context of the question asked (were surrogates of the Trump campaign in communication with the Russians), the truthful answer Session gave was no. He knew of no such activity, and himself, as a member of the campaign, had no such contact. His contact was in conjunction with his duties as a Senator.

I'm not picking sides here, but to be fair, the question wasn't "did Trump surrogates communicate with the Russians." The question was (in an admittedly rambling fashion, so it could have been misunderstood) "what will you do as AG if these allegations turn out to have some merit?", and he didn't answer that question.

*edit*
To Wolf's point, I agree that there are many willfully ignorant people on the left (there are many on both sides). However, I think it is incumbent upon those of us who seek a more constitutionally limited federal government to honestly assess both sides and call them both out for their shenaniganry. Just because the party in power is, theoretically, more aligned with our way of thinking (although, I'm not sure you can even make that case any longer) doesn't mean that we turn a blind eye when they do the same shit we were jumping up and down screaming about for the last 8 years.

I can agree with this 100%

Hypothetical questions like this are difficult to answer. In his answer Attorney General Sessions called the accuracy of the question into doubt when he responded that he knows nothing about any such meetings. There is no evidence any meetings took place, and if they did, for it to merit the attention of the attorney general, a violation of the law would have to have taken place. There is even less evidence of that.

The question was vaporous and ill defined. Had I been Session, I probably would have asked for the Senator to rephrase the question without all the extraneous bullshit, just to make sure I understood what was being asked. It wasn't altogether obvious to me, reading it after the fact.

It is the duty of the Attorney General to prosecute any and all crimes and to first and foremost uphold the law. Perhaps because this was not always the case under the Obama administration, Senator Franken felt the question to be necessary.

“I’m not aware of any of those activities,” he responded. He added: “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.”

In video form: https://twitter.com/JamieOGrady/status/837130762684153858?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

And therein lies a glimpse at the root of our problems. Actual principles don't matter to either "side"

To anyone with an attention span longer than fifteen minutes, it's hard to take the outrage gushing from the Dems too seriously. Trump is indeed a train wreck, but need people with more credibility than Democrats to start calling him out.

He was under oath. The problem isn't that he talked with Russian Ambassador, but that he said he hadn't. If he had not volunteered information (that wasn't even pertinent to the question), or simply admitted to the encounter, it wouldn't be an issue.

What happened, and I can tell, is that he'd been coached on his responses prior to the hearing. (Which pretty much everyone does, before undergoing Congressional hearings under oath, this isn't particular to Sessions by any stretch).

Franken's question touched on a talking point he'd been coached on, regarding the Russians, triggered the coached, canned response. When you see somewhat off-center responses given by people being questioned, that ramble on a topic without addressing the wording of the actual question, this is what has happened, almost all of the time.

So, Sessions was basically hoist via his own petard, due to his pre-hearing prep. Which is pretty damn ironic and humorous.

In what way is Trump a train wreck? He is unorthodox, but that is part of his attraction.

Do not confuse bugs with features.

First, Jeff Sessions.

Second, Ajit Pai.

I could go on all day, but neither of those two men should be anywhere near any type of power. We all deserve better.

I'll agree that some of Trumps actions have been overblown or misconstrued, but that doesn't change the fact that it's mostly harebrained. Aside from appointing McMaster and Mattis, I'd bee curious to hear about one thing Trump has done that makes a lick of goddamn sense.