patrick.net

Dan8267 says

Jefferson Sessions committed actual perjury

Bzzzzt. Wrong.

CBOEtrader says

Jefferson Sessions committed actual perjury

Last time I checked, lying to Congress under oath during a hearing was the quintessential definition of perjury, at least according to Jefferson Sessions back in the 1990s.

http://www.vox.com/world/2017/3/2/14790816/jeff-sessions-russia-perjury-law

This seems to be clearly false. Sessions met with the Russian ambassador during the campaign — twice, according to the Post story. This is not normal Senate activity, even for members like Sessions who were on the Armed Services Committee. The Post contacted every current member of the committee and asked them whether they had met with Kislyak last year. All 20 senators they heard from said no.

Stuart Green, a law professor at Rutgers who studies the law of lying, wrote via email.

“The denial [that Sessions did not have] ‘communications with the Russians’ seems quite categorical,” he explains. “It does not leave a lot of room for him to argue that he had communications with the Russians, just on non-Trump matters.”

“Sessions’s failure to clarify his response afterward is also incriminating,” Ryan Goodman, a New York University law professor and the co-editor of Just Security, a national security law publication, says. “Sessions’s failure to clarify his problematic answer in his follow-up responses to Leahy is evidence that his initial comment was willfully misleading the committee.”

Finally, there’s the question of who would prosecute Sessions. Normally, the US attorney’s office would investigate perjury in Congress, but Sessions is in charge of the US attorneys. Theoretically, that means Sessions’s deputy would be tasked with appointing a special prosecutor — but it’s not actually clear whether acting Attorney General Dana Boente, a Trump appointee, would want to.

[stupid comment limit]

And oh, the hypocrisy...

http://heavy.com/news/2017/03/jeff-sessions-perjury-crime-oath-bill-clinton-russia-sergey-ambassador-lied-to-congress-claims/

1. Sessions Communicated With the Russians Twice During the Presidential Campaign

2. Sessions Called Perjury Allegations Against Bill Clinton ‘Serious’ & Voted to Impeach Him for Perjury

Six times Jeff Sessions talked about perjury, access and recusal — when it involved the Clintons

“I am concerned about a president under oath being alleged to have committed perjury,” Sessions said in a January 1999 interview with C-SPAN that was resurfaced and widely shared on social media Wednesday night.

“In America, the Supreme Court and the American people believe no one is above the law,” Sessions said in 1999. “The president has gotten himself into this fix that is very serious.”

Bill Clinton was acquitted by the Senate in February 1999. Sessions, who voted to convict Clinton on both charges, said he was worried that the Senate’s decision would help anyone looking to lie under oath and could damage the country’s respect for the rule of law.

“It is crucial to our system of justice that we demand the truth,” Sessions said in a statement at the time. “I fear that an acquittal of this President will weaken the legal system by providing an option for those who consider being less than truthful in court.”

Sessions said that to him, it was “proven beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty” that Clinton committed perjury, and he assailed “the chief law-enforcement officer of the land, whose oath of office calls on him to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,” for what he called an attack on the law.

This is important because during his confirmation hearing, Sessions testified under oath that he had not communicated with the Russian ambassador — despite two such contacts.

Screw this hypocritical asshole and every republican that defends him. Jefferson Sessions is the poster boy for hypocrisy.

Dan8267 says

Republicans compromised national security when they attacked Bill Clinton for letting a fat whore suck his cock. The result was 9/11.

Agreed that it was a waste of resources. But bill Clinton didn't act strongly on al qaeda after the 1993 WTC bombing (which happened well before lewinsky trial) and Sandy Berger for not doing his job in making Clinton aware of al qaeda attacking US targets. Ultimately, even that is on Clinton.

The majority of media didn't think that reporting on al qaeda attacking us targets was noteworthy, so that emboldened them enough to plan and execute 9/11.

MMR says

But bill Clinton didn't act strongly on al qaeda after the 1993 WTC bombing (which happened well before lewinsky trial)

The very next day Bill Clinton addressed the nation about the issue. He also ordered missile attacks in response. It was a proportional response that did not start an unwinnable war, and it was directed at those responsible.

The bottom line is that the Republican Lewinsky charade took a lot of time and attention away from the president who had to stop dealing with national security issues to defend himself against legal charges and an attempt to remove him from office. This is a big deal. A president facing a political coup cannot devote his attention to other situations. He must first protect himself. I stand by my statements.