Trump MAGAThread IV: Twixt Scylla & Some Bad Hombres

[Ashmoria]

whats to wriggle out of? was pence required to use a state run hack proof server?

There's no such thing as a "hack proof" server. But Pence may have been required to use a state email account.

might have. and if he did it to avoid FOIA access its probably actionable. but its just not the same as the potential harm that could have come from the Clinton server

[Ashmoria]

he was governor of Indiana.

governors have no state secrets like the secretary of state of the united states does.

it is embarrassing, perhaps, when his email gets hacked and his personal or political secrets revealed but they hurt only him, not the country.

I thought governors were the CinCs of their state national guard until it gets federalised? Wouldn't some of the information they'd need for that fall under national security?

i doubt it.

but if his email was hacked perhaps there is some record of what was in those emails.

[Sane Outcasts]

I thought governors were the CinCs of their state national guard until it gets federalised? Wouldn't some of the information they'd need for that fall under national security?

i doubt it.

but if his email was hacked perhaps there is some record of what was in those emails.

The Indiana state government actually has those e-mails and some were released to the newspaper that broke the story under an Indiana public records request while others were withheld because of their sensitive nature. From what they got, we get this:

The emails provided to IndyStar show that Pence corresponded with his then-chief of staff, Jim Atterholt, and his top public safety and homeland security adviser John Hill, on subjects including Pence’s efforts to prevent the resettlement of Syrian refugees and the state’s response to a shooting at Canada’s national parliament building.

“I just received an update from the FBI regarding the individuals arrested for support of ISIS,” Hill wrote to Pence in a Jan. 8, 2016 email with the subject, “Arrests of Refugees.”

At that time, the Pence administration was embroiled in a lawsuit over the governor’s effort to block the resettlement of Syrian refugees in Indiana.

Hill went on to explain how many people were arrested, on what charges and in which cities before adding in underlined type: “Both of the earlier referenced refugees are reported now as ‘Iraqi’ — not Syrian.”

Much if not all of that information appears to have been reported in the media at the time. But questions remain about the more sensitive information contained in Pence’s AOL account that the Holcomb administration declined to release.

The hacker didn't seem to know they'd gotten into a governor's account because they tried to use it in a transparent "help, send money" scam letter sent to Pence's contact list.

[Jamzmania]

Has he actually admitted that he told an untruth under oath? Or that his wording was not ideal but he meant what he has been saying he meant? If the former, I would like to see the statement where he made that admission.

The two are equivalent.

They are not. One is "I said something that was not true." The other is "My wording might have confused you, but this is what I was trying to say."

[Fartsniffage]

The two are equivalent.

They are not. One is "I said something that was not true." The other is "My wording might have confused you, but this is what I was trying to say."

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

The two are equivalent.

They are not. One is "I said something that was not true." The other is "My wording might have confused you, but this is what I was trying to say."

Literal quite:

"I did not have communications with the Russians"

Apparently, he did. This is not about wording, this is not about confusion. He was asked what he would do if the Trump campaign had ties with the Russian government. His answer was that he did not have any communications with the Russians. Which he did. That's pure and simple lying under oath.

[Jamzmania]

They are not. One is "I said something that was not true." The other is "My wording might have confused you, but this is what I was trying to say."

Literal quite:

"I did not have communications with the Russians"

Apparently, he did. This is not about wording, this is not about confusion. He was asked what he would do if the Trump campaign had ties with the Russian government. His answer was that he did not have any communications with the Russians. Which he did. That's pure and simple lying under oath.

It's really not shaky. The definition of perjury is to lie under sworn deposition, and it's clear, under the direct context brought up, that Sessions did indeed perjure himself. Nobody's making the claim that anybody on the other side would be more or less lenient; I totally agree with you that if Loretta Lynch lied under oath she'd have Boehner wearing her like Buffalo Bill, but that's besides the point.

The problem is that Sessions' statement was not very clear (something that sometimes happens when talking).

He said:

I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.

Does that mean that he never, at any point in the campaign and in any capacity, communicated with the Russians? Or does that mean that he never communicated with the Russians in his capacity as a Trump surrogate? Sessions is upholding the latter explanation. Your interpretation of his words, which he contests is the wrong interpretation, is not enough evidence that he lied, and certainly not enough to prosecute him for perjury.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Literal quite:

"I did not have communications with the Russians"

Apparently, he did. This is not about wording, this is not about confusion. He was asked what he would do if the Trump campaign had ties with the Russian government. His answer was that he did not have any communications with the Russians. Which he did. That's pure and simple lying under oath.

The problem is that Sessions' statement was not very clear (something that sometimes happens when talking).

He said:



Does that mean that he never, at any point in the campaign and in any capacity, communicated with the Russians? Or does that mean that he never communicated with the Russians in his capacity as a Trump surrogate? Sessions is upholding the latter explanation. Your interpretation of his words, which he contests is the wrong interpretation, is not enough evidence that he lied, and certainly not enough to prosecute him for perjury.

The sentence "I did not have communications with the Russians" is clear enough to me. Any other explanation requires that we read far more into his words than he actually said. He sat before the Senate Judiciary Committee. If there had been any communications, it would have been good of him to tell about those, even if they happened in his capacity as senator. This is not just some off-hand conversation, it was a hearing. If the information he supplied is perceived as misleading, that's enough to prosecute him for perjury. He took an oath to tell 'the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth'. That includes not leaving out any information, not giving misleading information, and not letting the information given hinge on a dubious explanation. Of course he's giving that explanation, anything other would immediately result in perjury charges. The sentence 'I did not have communications with the Russians' is, as I stated, clear enough.

[Great Franconia and Verana]

whats to wriggle out of? was pence required to use a state run hack proof server?

According to law ? No.
According to his own loudly and repeatedly declared morality ? Yes.

This ^.
He spent months crying bloody murder about Clinton's email psuedo-scandal, but it turns out he not only was doing something extremely similar. Here are some excerpts from the IndyStar Report.

Cybersecurity experts say Pence’s emails were likely just as insecure as Clinton’s. While there has been speculation about whether Clinton's emails were hacked, Pence’s account was actually compromised last summer by a scammer who sent an email to his contacts claiming Pence and his wife were stranded in the Philippines and in urgent need of money.

Indiana Public Access Counselor Luke Britt, who was appointed by Pence in 2013, said he advises state officials to copy or forward their emails involving state business to their government accounts to ensure the record is preserved on state servers.

But there is no indication that Pence took any such steps to preserve his AOL emails until he was leaving the governor's office.

When public officials fail to retain their private-account emails pertaining to public business, "they're running the risk of violating the law,” Britt said. “A good steward of those messages and best practice is going to dictate they preserve those."

The experts told IndyStar that similar arguments about a lack of transparency could be made about Pence’s use of a personal email account.

“There is an issue of double standard here,” said Gerry Lanosga, a professor at Indiana University and past president of the Indiana Coalition for Open Government. “He has been far from forthcoming about his own private email account on which it’s clear he has conducted state business. So there is a disconnect there that cannot be avoided.”

Its pretty hypocritical.
Vox reported that Pence talked about Terror response, and security measures at Government buildings on this email. There may not be any "classified" materials but its pretty clear that some sensitive stuff was discussed.

[Jamzmania]

The sentence "I did not have communications with the Russians" is clear enough to me. Any other explanation requires that we read far more into his words than he actually said. He sat before the Senate Judiciary Committee. If there had been any communications, it would have been good of him to tell about those, even if they happened in his capacity as senator. This is not just some off-hand conversation, it was a hearing. If the information he supplied is perceived as misleading, that's enough to prosecute him for perjury. He took an oath to tell 'the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth'. That includes not leaving out any information, not giving misleading information, and not letting the information given hinge on a dubious explanation. Of course he's giving that explanation, anything other would immediately result in perjury charges. The sentence 'I did not have communications with the Russians' is, as I stated, clear enough.

It's "clear enough" if you ignore all context and the first half of that sentence. The context involved a question about Trump campaign contact with the Russians, and he responded by saying that he himself had been considered a Trump surrogate at some points, and then he said that he did not have communications with the Russians, with the presumed brackets "I did not have communications with the Russians [as a Trump surrogate]."

I'm not sure what the exact wording of the federal perjury law is, but even I know that it is not perjury if what you say has been perceived as misleading, even if it was not intended to be so.

[Great Franconia and Verana]

The sentence "I did not have communications with the Russians" is clear enough to me. Any other explanation requires that we read far more into his words than he actually said. He sat before the Senate Judiciary Committee. If there had been any communications, it would have been good of him to tell about those, even if they happened in his capacity as senator. This is not just some off-hand conversation, it was a hearing. If the information he supplied is perceived as misleading, that's enough to prosecute him for perjury. He took an oath to tell 'the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth'. That includes not leaving out any information, not giving misleading information, and not letting the information given hinge on a dubious explanation. Of course he's giving that explanation, anything other would immediately result in perjury charges. The sentence 'I did not have communications with the Russians' is, as I stated, clear enough.

It's "clear enough" if you ignore all context and the first half of that sentence. The context involved a question about Trump campaign contact with the Russians, and he responded by saying that he himself had been considered a Trump surrogate at some points, and then he said that he did not have communications with the Russians, with the presumed brackets "I did not have communications with the Russians [as a Trump surrogate]."

I'm not sure what the exact wording of the federal perjury law is, but even I know that it is not perjury if what you say has been perceived as misleading, even if it was not intended to be so.

The context was this.
Al Franken asked Sessions what he would do if he came upon evidence that the Trump campaign had been in communication with the Russians.
Sessions replied by saying he had been a surrogate, and had never spoken to Russia.

He said he had never spoken with Russia. Period. You cant add subtext to a sentence after the fact. Surely, someone who is as smart as Sessions would remember two meetings with the Russian Ambassador, and realize how close not disclosing these meetings takes him to perjury. Not to mention, meeting the Russian ambassador was not normal for a Senator, even a Senator on the armed Services Committee like Sessions was.

Is what he said worthy of a perjury charge? Its unlikely, perjury is hard to prove. But its still a questionable action by a guy who has a questionable past, whose boss has questionable ties to the very country Sessions lied about.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

The sentence "I did not have communications with the Russians" is clear enough to me. Any other explanation requires that we read far more into his words than he actually said. He sat before the Senate Judiciary Committee. If there had been any communications, it would have been good of him to tell about those, even if they happened in his capacity as senator. This is not just some off-hand conversation, it was a hearing. If the information he supplied is perceived as misleading, that's enough to prosecute him for perjury. He took an oath to tell 'the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth'. That includes not leaving out any information, not giving misleading information, and not letting the information given hinge on a dubious explanation. Of course he's giving that explanation, anything other would immediately result in perjury charges. The sentence 'I did not have communications with the Russians' is, as I stated, clear enough.

It's "clear enough" if you ignore all context and the first half of that sentence. The context involved a question about Trump campaign contact with the Russians, and he responded by saying that he himself had been considered a Trump surrogate at some points, and then he said that he did not have communications with the Russians, with the presumed brackets "I did not have communications with the Russians [as a Trump surrogate]."

I'm not sure what the exact wording of the federal perjury law is, but even I know that it is not perjury if what you say has been perceived as misleading, even if it was not intended to be so.

Whoever,
(1)having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true;

Is guilty of perjury

The perception that something was misleading is perhaps not enough, but could Sessions know that what he was saying was perhaps misleading? I say, he could know, and he should have known. In law, the word 'and' is usually perceived as a hard division. If he intended to say what you gather, he should've have said those words to take away any doubt. He didn't. If we apply Ockham's Razor, your interpretation demands that we make a presumption: that Sessions meant to say 'as a Trump surrogate'. We must apply as little presumptions as possible. Therefore, we must conclude that your explanation demands more evidence to support it. Do you have evidence to support that Sessions meant to say 'as a Trump surrogate' (other than his own words, of course. Unis testis, nullus testis)?

[Jamzmania]

It's "clear enough" if you ignore all context and the first half of that sentence. The context involved a question about Trump campaign contact with the Russians, and he responded by saying that he himself had been considered a Trump surrogate at some points, and then he said that he did not have communications with the Russians, with the presumed brackets "I did not have communications with the Russians [as a Trump surrogate]."

I'm not sure what the exact wording of the federal perjury law is, but even I know that it is not perjury if what you say has been perceived as misleading, even if it was not intended to be so.

The context was this.
Al Franken asked Sessions what he would do if he came upon evidence that the Trump campaign had been in communication with the Russians.
Sessions replied by saying he had been a surrogate, and had never spoken to Russia.

He said he had never spoken with Russia. Period. You cant add subtext to a sentence after the fact. Not to mention, meeting the Russian ambassador was not normal for a Senator, even a Senator on the armed Services Committee like Sessions was.

Is what he said worthy of a perjury charge? Its unlikely, perjury is hard to prove. But its still a questionable action by a guy who has a questionable past, whose boss has questionable ties to the very country Sessions lied about.

Maybe it's a regional thing, but when I read that sentence the implied caveat of the second half of the sentence (derived from the first half) is that he had never spoken to Russia as a surrogate. Sessions is also a Southerner so perhaps that has something to do with it. Nevertheless the entire context of the exchange revolved around the Trump campaign.

Also, it is apparently quite common for senators to meet with foreign ambassadors, including the Russian one.

[Great Franconia and Verana]

My reactions are mixed. Howling laughter on one hand, and deep sadness that some people believe this idiot.

[Jamzmania]

It's "clear enough" if you ignore all context and the first half of that sentence. The context involved a question about Trump campaign contact with the Russians, and he responded by saying that he himself had been considered a Trump surrogate at some points, and then he said that he did not have communications with the Russians, with the presumed brackets "I did not have communications with the Russians [as a Trump surrogate]."

I'm not sure what the exact wording of the federal perjury law is, but even I know that it is not perjury if what you say has been perceived as misleading, even if it was not intended to be so.

Whoever,
(1)having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true;

Is guilty of perjury

The perception that something was misleading is perhaps not enough, but could Sessions know that what he was saying was perhaps misleading? I say, he could know, and he should have known. In law, the word 'and' is usually perceived as a hard division. If he intended to say what you gather, he should've have said those words to take away any doubt. He didn't. If we apply Ockham's Razor, your interpretation demands that we make a presumption: that Sessions meant to say 'as a Trump surrogate'. We must apply as little presumptions as possible. Therefore, we must conclude that your explanation demands more evidence to support it. Do you have evidence to support that Sessions meant to say 'as a Trump surrogate' (other than his own words, of course. Unis testis, nullus testis)?

And there you go trying to scrutinize every single word and every bit of sentence structure in a spoken sentence in a stressful situation.

[Geilinor]

And there you go trying to scrutinize every single word and every bit of sentence structure in a spoken sentence in a stressful situation.

If he couldn't deal with the stress of confirmation hearings, he should have withdrawn. Now he may have to resign.

[Great Franconia and Verana]

And there you go trying to scrutinize every single word and every bit of sentence structure in a spoken sentence in a stressful situation.

If he couldn't deal with the stress of confirmation hearings, he should have withdrawn. Now he may have to resign.

Exactly.
If a Confirmation hearing can get under his skin, good luck serving as AG, or any high profile Cabinet post for that matter.

[Washington Resistance Army]

And there you go trying to scrutinize every single word and every bit of sentence structure in a spoken sentence in a stressful situation.

If he couldn't deal with the stress of confirmation hearings, he should have withdrawn. Now he may have to resign.

We can only hope. Sessions is awful.

[Gauthier]

My reactions are mixed. Howling laughter on one hand, and deep sadness that some people believe this idiot.

Donald must be suffering from lotion poisoning, that's IMAX scale projection right there.

[Great Franconia and Verana]

My reactions are mixed. Howling laughter on one hand, and deep sadness that some people believe this idiot.

Donald must be suffering from lotion poisoning, that's IMAX scale projection right there.

Its almost unbelievable.

[Jamzmania]

And there you go trying to scrutinize every single word and every bit of sentence structure in a spoken sentence in a stressful situation.

If he couldn't deal with the stress of confirmation hearings, he should have withdrawn. Now he may have to resign.

Regardless of whether he can deal with it, a hearing before Congress is (probably almost by definition) a situation in which there will be no insignificant amount of stress. The apparent evidence that he "can't deal," however, is one sentence which some people apparently misinterpreted.

[Geilinor]

If he couldn't deal with the stress of confirmation hearings, he should have withdrawn. Now he may have to resign.

Regardless of whether he can deal with it, a hearing before Congress is (probably almost by definition) a situation in which there will be no insignificant amount of stress. The apparent evidence that he "can't deal," however, is one sentence which some people apparently misinterpreted.

You seemed to imply that stress is an excuse for lying or misleading.

[Jamzmania]

Regardless of whether he can deal with it, a hearing before Congress is (probably almost by definition) a situation in which there will be no insignificant amount of stress. The apparent evidence that he "can't deal," however, is one sentence which some people apparently misinterpreted.

You seemed to imply that stress is an excuse for lying or misleading.

You seem to be implying that I was implying that he lied or was misleading.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

My reactions are mixed. Howling laughter on one hand, and deep sadness that some people believe this idiot.

So much for that "presidential" change.

Who'd have thought it was going to last less than a week now?

[Galloism]

My reactions are mixed. Howling laughter on one hand, and deep sadness that some people believe this idiot.

So much for that "presidential" change.

Who'd have thought it was going to last less than a week now?

Well, I won the office pool.