This is not good for Sessions.

[Spamature]

Where you meeting with the Russians as a senator or as a campaign official ? Looks like the travel receipts tell a different story.

Sessions used his campaign funds for RNC trip, where he talked to Russian ambassador

 

[connieb]

Where you meeting with the Russians as a senator or as a campaign official ? Looks like the travel receipts tell a different story.

Sessions used his campaign funds for RNC trip, where he talked to Russian ambassador

OMFG. He used campaign funds. To attend a campaign event. NOT to go meet with the russian abassador. That was tangential to the event. The basis for the allowabilty of the expense is the purpose of the trip. Its no different than a business expense. If I travel for work and work during the day and at night go to a concert, my hotel is still a valid business expense. EVEN though I also had fun...

This is no different. Unless you can prove that he traveled exclusively to meet with the ambassador on the campaigns dime.. you got nuthing.

 

[Spamature]

OMFG. He used campaign funds. To attend a campaign event. NOT to go meet with the russian abassador. That was tangential to the event. The basis for the allowabilty of the expense is the purpose of the trip. Its no different than a business expense. If I travel for work and work during the day and at night go to a concert, my hotel is still a valid business expense. EVEN though I also had fun...

This is no different. Unless you can prove that he traveled exclusively to meet with the ambassador on the campaigns dime.. you got nuthing.

He was asked if anyone from the campaign had contact with the Russian. When he traveled to the RNC convention he was part of the campaign. He even made a speech at the convention for the campaign compounding that fact. So there is no doubt that at that point he was part of the campaign when he was there meeting with the ambassador.

 

[Dawg]

OMFG. He used campaign funds. To attend a campaign event. NOT to go meet with the russian abassador. That was tangential to the event. The basis for the allowabilty of the expense is the purpose of the trip. Its no different than a business expense. If I travel for work and work during the day and at night go to a concert, my hotel is still a valid business expense. EVEN though I also had fun...

This is no different. Unless you can prove that he traveled exclusively to meet with the ambassador on the campaigns dime.. you got nuthing.

Gasp, politicians using campaign funds, gasp:

http://www.allenbwest.com/allen/new...ecret-congressional-black-caucus-media-silent

 

[Dino]

Where you meeting with the Russians as a senator or as a campaign official ? Looks like the travel receipts tell a different story.

Sessions used his campaign funds for RNC trip, where he talked to Russian ambassador

If it was a "campaign stop" I'd concede your point. But this was the RNC convention, which is almost fully attended by every member of the Senate. While"campaign officials" are surely attending the convention, so too does 90+% of the House and Senate, all in their official capacity as representatives of their state and constituency,.
This is splitting some fine hairs here, and not a closed case by any means. Sessions behavior at this point is still non-actionable.

 

[Craig]

OMFG. He used campaign funds. To attend a campaign event. NOT to go meet with the russian abassador. That was tangential to the event. The basis for the allowabilty of the expense is the purpose of the trip. Its no different than a business expense. If I travel for work and work during the day and at night go to a concert, my hotel is still a valid business expense. EVEN though I also had fun...

This is no different. Unless you can prove that he traveled exclusively to meet with the ambassador on the campaigns dime.. you got nuthing.

Nope. It is proven that Sessions met with the Russians.

What was his answer to Franken's question again?


Here, I'll help...


Franken: if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?"

Sessions: "Sen. Franken, I'm not aware of any of those activities, I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians, and I'm unable to comment on it."


He lied. He now wishes to amend his statement.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Attorney General Jeff Sessions plans on Monday to provide amended testimony regarding his contacts with Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. during the presidential election.

In a statement Friday, Justice Department spokesman Peter Carr says Sessions will also respond to questions raised by Democratic senators.

http://fox40.com/2017/03/03/sessions-to-provide-amended-testimony-on-monday/


Can Senators amend their vote?

 

[Queen Titania]

He was asked if anyone from the campaign had contact with the Russian. When he traveled to the RNC convention he was part of the campaign. He even made a speech at the convention for the campaign compounding that fact. So there is no doubt that at that point he was part of the campaign when he was there meeting with the ambassador.

Why oh why oh why do you so desperately want war with Russia? Why do you so hate Washington's dream for the US of being friends with the world and instead embrace, to such an extent that it is verging on treason, Clinton/Obama's dream of war with the world?

This is a serious question - do not deny your wish for hatred misery and war, you can't it shows in your every post - just please try to explain why you want it so badly that you are willing to risk your own country for it.

 

[Queen Titania]

Nope. It is proven that Sessions met with the Russians.

What was his answer to Franken's question again?


Here, I'll help...


Franken: if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?"

Sessions: "Sen. Franken, I'm not aware of any of those activities, I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians, and I'm unable to comment on it."


He lied. He now wishes to amend his statement.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Attorney General Jeff Sessions plans on Monday to provide amended testimony regarding his contacts with Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. during the presidential election.

In a statement Friday, Justice Department spokesman Peter Carr says Sessions will also respond to questions raised by Democratic senators.

http://fox40.com/2017/03/03/sessions-to-provide-amended-testimony-on-monday/


Can Senators amend their vote?

For clarification - not denial.

 

[Craig]

For clarification - not denial.

Yes...he is amending his lie...for clarification. That means...he lied. Under oath. aka, perjury.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

You do know that this "meeting" was arranged by the Obama Administration, right? And he used campaign funds to travel to the RNC, as every Republican in attendance did. The RNC was the purpose for the trip, not the "meeting" with Kislyak (who apparently was one of a group Sessions addressed, and then they briefly exchanged hellos after the address). There's no there, there...

 

[Craig]

You do know that this "meeting" was arranged by the Obama Administration, right? And he used campaign funds to travel to the RNC, as every Republican in attendance did. The RNC was the purpose for the trip, not the "meeting" with Kislyak (who apparently was one of a group Sessions addressed, and then they briefly exchanged hellos after the address). There's no there, there...

He LIED under oath.

That's the there...there.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

He was asked if anyone from the campaign had contact with the Russian. When he traveled to the RNC convention he was part of the campaign. He even made a speech at the convention for the campaign compounding that fact. So there is no doubt that at that point he was part of the campaign when he was there meeting with the ambassador.

Privately? Or did they just exchange pleasantries during the reception after his address?

 

[Queen Titania]

Yes...he is amending his lie...for clarification.

How was it a lie? The question was so poised that he did not lie ------- you warmongers have jumped on the fact that the question did not ask for a wider answer - and so he will now give the wider answer - which was not called for by the question.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

He LIED under oath.

That's the there...there.

Hi Craig! Where have you been?

And, for the record, being a member of a group Session addressed, and exchanging pleasantries afterwards during the reception, isn't a "meeting."

 

[Craig]

How was it a lie? The question was so poised that he did not lie ------- you warmongers have jumped on the fact that the question did not ask for a wider answer - and so he will now give the wider answer - which was not called for by the question.

Good lord.

Q. Did anyone meet?

A. No.

English can be difficult...but it can also be blunt and easy to understand. Sessions...lied...under oath.

 

[Craig]

Hi Craig! Where have you been?

And, for the record, being a member of a group Session addressed, and exchanging pleasantries afterwards during the reception, isn't a "meeting."

This place sucks.

Why make stuff up? You don't have any clue if it was a mere "pleasantry" or otherwise. He was asked a question, under oath, and all who honestly read the question know that Sessions lied.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

This place sucks.

Why make stuff up? You don't have any clue if it was a mere "pleasantry" or otherwise. He was asked a question, under oath, and all who honestly read the question know that Sessions lied.

Agreed!

But unless they got together, in private, and it appears they did not, I don't think this qualifies as a "meeting." And his answer was truthful.

 

[Craig]

Agreed!

But unless they got together, in private, and it appears they did not, I don't think this qualifies as a "meeting." And his answer was truthful.

I think they met, twice. His answer was false...which is why he will be amending it on Monday. In addition, I believe he knew others from the campaign met with the Russians.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

I think they met, twice. His answer was false...which is why he will be amending it on Monday. In addition, I believe he knew others from the campaign met with the Russians.

Not if you are counting this one - which wasn't a "meeting."

Sergey I. Kislyak, the Russian ambassador, is among a small group of diplomats who
chat with Mr. Sessions after an event during the Republican National Convention.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/02/us/politics/sessions-russia-timeline.html?_r=0

The September 8 meeting in his office was. So you got him on that one. Maybe he'll release the transcripts and we'll see if he discussed the hacks or any other campaign interference. If so, he should resign. I suspect he was referring to that sort of "communications with the Russians" in his hearing, because that is what Franken was asking about.

 

[Craig]

Not if you are counting this one - which wasn't a "meeting."

Sergey I. Kislyak, the Russian ambassador, is among a small group of diplomats who
chat with Mr. Sessions after an event during the Republican National Convention.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/02/us/politics/sessions-russia-timeline.html?_r=0

The September 8 meeting in his office was one. So you got him on that one. Maybe he'll release the transcripts and we'll see if he discussed the hacks or any other campaign interference. If so, he should resign. I suspect he was referring to that sort of "communications with the Russians" in his hearing, because that is what Franken was asking about.

Thanks for proving they met....which was what Franken asked.