Trump MAGAThread IV: Twixt Scylla & Some Bad Hombres

[Vassenor]

Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III(I dare anyone to read that without a Southern twang) studied law at the University of Alabama. If the wording of his answer caused senators to believe that he had had no contact with Russia when, in fact, he had had contact with Russia, then given his juris doctor and four decades of experience, I think we can safely conclude that he knew full fucking well what he was doing.

Everyone makes very minor mistakes from time to time.

Lying under oath is not a minor mistake.

[Jamzmania]

Everyone makes very minor mistakes from time to time.

Lying under oath is not a minor mistake.

As I have already extensively explained, as far as we are able to tell, there is no evidence that he lied under oath.

[Vassenor]

Lying under oath is not a minor mistake.

As I have already extensively explained, as far as we are able to tell, there is no evidence that he lied under oath.

He said he had no contact with the Russians during the campaign. We have seen that he had contact with the Russians during the campaign. QED.

[Jamzmania]

As I have already extensively explained, as far as we are able to tell, there is no evidence that he lied under oath.

He said he had no contact with the Russians during the campaign. We have seen that he had contact with the Russians during the campaign. QED.

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.

[Philjia]

Mexico adds $50,000,000 to legal aid budget for citizens living in the US fearing deportation. https://www.apnews.com/c57b898dfbdd4e5a ... p-migrants

They're still paying for the wall, right?

[United City States of Oceania]

Lying under oath is not a minor mistake.

As I have already extensively explained, as far as we are able to tell, there is no evidence that he lied under oath.

There is significant evidence that he lied under oath.

[Jamzmania]

As I have already extensively explained, as far as we are able to tell, there is no evidence that he lied under oath.

There is significant evidence that he lied under oath.

Please elaborate.

[Cymrea]

There is significant evidence that he lied under oath.

Please elaborate.

Well, there's the recordings from the confirmation hearings....

[Jamzmania]

Please elaborate.

Well, there's the recordings from the confirmation hearings....

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.

[Farnhamia]

Well, there's the recordings from the confirmation hearings....

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.

It's the Caesar's Wife principle. Wiki sayeth ...

In 63 BC Caesar was elected to the position of Pontifex Maximus, the chief priest of the Roman state religion, which came with an official residence on the Via Sacra.[3] In 62 BC Pompeia hosted the festival of the Bona Dea ("good goddess"), which no man was permitted to attend, in this house. However a young patrician named Publius Clodius Pulcher managed to gain admittance disguised as a woman, apparently for the purpose of seducing Pompeia. He was caught and prosecuted for sacrilege. Caesar gave no evidence against Clodius at his trial, and he was acquitted. Nevertheless, Caesar divorced Pompeia, saying that "my wife ought not even to be under suspicion."[4] This gave rise to a proverb, sometimes expressed: "Caesar's wife must be above suspicion."[5][6]

Sessions was, from time to time, a Trump campaign surrogate. He should have had the forethought to refrain from meeting the Russian ambassador on the basis that it could look bad for Trump. Or maybe Sessions didn't really think Trump could pull it off, in which case, who cares?

[Jamzmania]

It's the Caesar's Wife principle. Wiki sayeth ...

In 63 BC Caesar was elected to the position of Pontifex Maximus, the chief priest of the Roman state religion, which came with an official residence on the Via Sacra.[3] In 62 BC Pompeia hosted the festival of the Bona Dea ("good goddess"), which no man was permitted to attend, in this house. However a young patrician named Publius Clodius Pulcher managed to gain admittance disguised as a woman, apparently for the purpose of seducing Pompeia. He was caught and prosecuted for sacrilege. Caesar gave no evidence against Clodius at his trial, and he was acquitted. Nevertheless, Caesar divorced Pompeia, saying that "my wife ought not even to be under suspicion."[4] This gave rise to a proverb, sometimes expressed: "Caesar's wife must be above suspicion."[5][6]

Sessions was, from time to time, a Trump campaign surrogate. He should have had the forethought to refrain from meeting the Russian ambassador on the basis that it could look bad for Trump. Or maybe Sessions didn't really think Trump could pull it off, in which case, who cares?

He's a senator. It's just part of his job.

[Cymrea]

It's the Caesar's Wife principle. Wiki sayeth ...

Sessions was, from time to time, a Trump campaign surrogate. He should have had the forethought to refrain from meeting the Russian ambassador on the basis that it could look bad for Trump. Or maybe Sessions didn't really think Trump could pull it off, in which case, who cares?

He's a senator. It's just part of his job.

Then he should have disclosed the meetings instead of stating under oath that he never met with Russians.

[Jamzmania]

He's a senator. It's just part of his job.

Then he should have disclosed the meetings instead of stating under oath that he never met with Russians.

See my above post.

[Cymrea]

Then he should have disclosed the meetings instead of stating under oath that he never met with Russians.

See my above post.

Which has been rebutted already. It's not the nice tight circle you seem to be aiming for.

[Farnhamia]

It's the Caesar's Wife principle. Wiki sayeth ...

Sessions was, from time to time, a Trump campaign surrogate. He should have had the forethought to refrain from meeting the Russian ambassador on the basis that it could look bad for Trump. Or maybe Sessions didn't really think Trump could pull it off, in which case, who cares?

He's a senator. It's just part of his job.

Talking to the Russian ambassador is part of a Senator's job? Maybe on a tenth-level of priority, maybe. His job was to represent the people of Alabama. And when he decided to support and campaign for Donald Trump, he should have had the brains to think it through. That's the Caesar's Wife thing, it makes Trump look bad and a loyal supporter should avoid circumstances that make his candidate look bad, that make his successful candidate, now President of the United States of America, look bad. This is simple common sense, you don't make your boss look bad. Not unless you want to replace him, in which case you don't do it in public. And if Sessions forgot, well, then maybe shouldn't be the Attorney General, FFS.

[Salandriagado]

Then it was a stupid joke unbecoming of a President.

Presidents tell jokes all the time.

Some of them, however, do a good job of it. That is not a good joke.

[Jamzmania]

See my above post.

Which has been rebutted already. It's not the nice tight circle you seem to be aiming for.

Maybe you shouldn't be bringing it up again if you have no new points to add.

[Jamzmania]

He's a senator. It's just part of his job.

Talking to the Russian ambassador is part of a Senator's job? Maybe on a tenth-level of priority, maybe. His job was to represent the people of Alabama. And when he decided to support and campaign for Donald Trump, he should have had the brains to think it through. That's the Caesar's Wife thing, it makes Trump look bad and a loyal supporter should avoid circumstances that make his candidate look bad, that make his successful candidate, now President of the United States of America, look bad. This is simple common sense, you don't make your boss look bad. Not unless you want to replace him, in which case you don't do it in public. And if Sessions forgot, well, then maybe shouldn't be the Attorney General, FFS.

It only makes him look bad in the eyes of Democrats who never liked him anyway. I'd be willing to wager that most others see this as a non-issue.

[Jamzmania]

Presidents tell jokes all the time.

Some of them, however, do a good job of it. That is not a good joke.

I thought it was pretty funny.

[Uxupox]

Some of them, however, do a good job of it. That is not a good joke.

I thought it was pretty funny.

it was.

[Corrian]

I see we're still making every excuse possible any time someone does something wrong that doesn't involve a Clinton.

[Ifreann]

Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III(I dare anyone to read that without a Southern twang) studied law at the University of Alabama. If the wording of his answer caused senators to believe that he had had no contact with Russia when, in fact, he had had contact with Russia, then given his juris doctor and four decades of experience, I think we can safely conclude that he knew full fucking well what he was doing.

Everyone makes very minor mistakes from time to time.

I'm sure. And it is rather unlikely that an experienced lawyer and judge would make such a mistake. Something I hope will be taken into consideration when Sessions faces trial for perjury.

---

It's the Caesar's Wife principle. Wiki sayeth ...

Sessions was, from time to time, a Trump campaign surrogate. He should have had the forethought to refrain from meeting the Russian ambassador on the basis that it could look bad for Trump. Or maybe Sessions didn't really think Trump could pull it off, in which case, who cares?

He's a senator. It's just part of his job.

I'm given to understand that no other senator on the same committee met with the Russian ambassador.

[Shofercia]

So you're saying that if the IRS thought that Trump might betray the US, they still wouldn't leak his tax returns? I doubt that.

Based on what? Does the IRS have some reputation for only hiring the most conscientious of people, of whom any one would gladly break the law and release private information about an American citizen if they felt doing so was in the best interests of the American people?

If, on the other hand, it was about his legal tax evasion, then the IRS would most definitely not leak it, because if they did, Republicans would simply cut their staff in half, in the best case scenario.

So what you're telling me is that the IRS would definitely leak Trump's tax returns if there was anything in them that would damage Trump, unless it's just Trump avoiding taxes as far as he possibly can, because if they leaked that damaging information about Trump then they'd probably be fired. But they would totally not fear for their jobs if there were any other damaging information.

Stop moving goalposts. What I am saying is that if there was a chance that Trump might betray the country, the IRS would've leaked his tax returns. That's all I said. If there was something in them that would just damage Trump, the IRS wouldn't give a fuck.

[The Black Forrest]

Based on what? Does the IRS have some reputation for only hiring the most conscientious of people, of whom any one would gladly break the law and release private information about an American citizen if they felt doing so was in the best interests of the American people?


So what you're telling me is that the IRS would definitely leak Trump's tax returns if there was anything in them that would damage Trump, unless it's just Trump avoiding taxes as far as he possibly can, because if they leaked that damaging information about Trump then they'd probably be fired. But they would totally not fear for their jobs if there were any other damaging information.

Stop moving goalposts. What I am saying is that if there was a chance that Trump might betray the country, the IRS would've leaked his tax returns. That's all I said. If there was something in them that would just damage Trump, the IRS wouldn't give a fuck.

Nice vapor defense. Whose tax returns have the leaked before for the good of the people?

[Galloism]

Stop moving goalposts. What I am saying is that if there was a chance that Trump might betray the country, the IRS would've leaked his tax returns. That's all I said. If there was something in them that would just damage Trump, the IRS wouldn't give a fuck.

Nice vapor defense. Whose tax returns have the leaked before for the good of the people?

I never knew before that the IRS was the last line of defense against tyranny.