ruby59
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 3,553
Attorney General Sessions Lied Under Oath
- Thread starter AGBF
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2012
- Messages
- 7,329
E B|1488574719|4136111 said:
You mean like consistent complaining about Fox News by the last president. And the DOJ/FBI holding James Rosen searching his computer and all that kind of nonsense?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/justice-departments-scrutiny-of-fox-news-reporter-james-rosen-in-leak-case-draws-fire/2013/05/20/c6289eba-c162-11e2-8bd8-2788030e6b44_story.html
As far as I know Trump is investigating the source of leaks within his agencies and not holding any members of the press for questioning on how they got their information.
You keep mentioning that partisanship is a helluva drug. Then much of PS that posts must be extremely high.
ruby59
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 3,553
E B|1488574719|4136111 said:ruby59|1488573714|4136102 said:
Judge Curiel? Or, more recently, "So-called judges." I wasn't referring at all to his SC pick. You see, he attacks anyone and anything that is critical of him, which can become incredibly dangerous. Drip, drip, drip.
ruby59|1488573714|4136102 said:
That's why it's bad to get, or only trust, news from one source, or from a few that make up an echo chamber. That's the whole point of a free press- the ability to read from a multitude of sources with different viewpoints, though facts are facts, whether we agree with them or not. Like science, to quote Mr. DeGrasse Tyson.
Ginsburg isn't any more of a 'politicized' justice than Scalia was, and yet conservatives hold him up as some sort of an apolitical constitutional virtuoso. For the cheap seats: partisanship is a HELLUVA drug.
A justice who falls asleep during speeches and admits she was probably drunk needs to go.
And as far as the news, I listen to Fox, MSNBC, and CNN, but only when certain anchors are on.
I will no more listen to Maddow as I will O'Reilly. Neither extreme interests me.
AnnaH
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2013
- Messages
- 1,262
No one has said treason is okay. So far there's absolutely no proof of treason. That's fact. IF it happened, it will be known.
Pence as governor had a private email. He did not have a private server. He says (that will be checked, I'm sure) that he turned over all emails, unlike Clinton, who "bleached" 30,000. That was after she said she turned in all emails. Big difference.
Pence as governor had a private email. He did not have a private server. He says (that will be checked, I'm sure) that he turned over all emails, unlike Clinton, who "bleached" 30,000. That was after she said she turned in all emails. Big difference.
E B
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2005
- Messages
- 9,491
If the defense for any action of Trump's that is being criticized is to post a link to a story where a liberal president/candidate/random teacher from California did something kinda-sorta similar, it's probably indefensible, right? The president did something bad- HERE'S where A LIBERAL did the sorta-kinda-similarly bad thing! It assumes I/we agreed with those decisions of Obama's/Hillary's/Ms. Apple's simply because I, too am liberal. Just not the case. It's also not a great way to combat the idea that Trump is defended at every opportunity (which I know not every conservative here does), but I don't even think that's being denied anymore, so, moot. Plus, ignoring all of that, any fact checking website I link to that debunks any kinda-sorta example will be explained away as having a liberal bias. It's all a giant waste of time. It seems like it'd be much more constructive to argue why what Trump did was good, or, not so bad, right? Obama's not the president anymore, and Hillary never will be. It is now the time of Trump (boy, was that hard to type) and this Russia smoke isn't something coming from fringe left-wing blogs. And it doesn't seem to be going away.
Oh, for sure. I never said I was exempt. I'm keeping all of the above in mind for myself going forward, as well.
redwood66|1488576356|4136129 said:
Oh, for sure. I never said I was exempt. I'm keeping all of the above in mind for myself going forward, as well.
AnnaH
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2013
- Messages
- 1,262
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2012
- Messages
- 7,329
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2014
- Messages
- 20,013
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2013
- Messages
- 6,321
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2003
- Messages
- 22,161
From "The Washington Post" (excerpted)
"Federal prosecutors have brought charges in cases far less serious than Sessions’s"
By Philip Lacovara and Lawrence Robbins March 3 at 5:35 PM
Philip Lacovara was counsel to Watergate special prosecutors Archibald Cox and Leon Jaworski, and also served as deputy U.S. solicitor general responsible for criminal matters, including the 'Bronston' case. Lawrence Robbins has been both an assistant U.S. attorney and assistant to the solicitor general. Lacovara is a lifelong Republican; Robbins contributed to and raised money for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. The views expressed are their own.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions made a seemingly false statement under oath during his confirmation hearing. Admittedly, not every potential perjury case gets prosecuted, and Sessions may well have defenses to such a charge. But as lawyers at the Justice Department and attorneys in private practice who have represented individuals accused in such cases, we can state with assurance: Federal prosecutors have brought charges in cases involving far more trivial misstatements and situations far less consequential than whether a nominee to be the nation’s chief law enforcement officer misled fellow senators during his confirmation hearings.
Sessions’s problematic statement involves his response to a question by Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) about what he would do as attorney general 'if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign.' Sessions said he was unaware of any such activities, then volunteered, 'I did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it.' In fact, then-Sen. Sessions (R-Ala.), a top Trump campaign adviser, met at least twice during the presidential campaign with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, The Post revealed.
As any number of witnesses have learned the hard way, it is a federal felony to lie to Congress. Under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, Sections 1001 and 1621, perjury before Congress is punishable by up to five years imprisonment. To prove that offense, a prosecutor would have to establish that Sessions’s answer was false, that he knew it was false when made and that the subject matter of the answer was 'material' to the congressional inquiry in which he was testifying.
Those elements all appear to be present. The element of falsity is established by the conceded fact that he did 'have communications with the Russians' during the Trump campaign. And there can scarcely be any doubt that the subject matter of Sessions’s answer was highly material to the Senate’s consideration of his nomination. Any suggestion that he participated in the suspected interaction between Trump campaign personnel and the Russian government was, and remains, a matter of grave concern.
That leaves one element: Did Sessions know that his answer was false? He says no, asserting that he understood Franken to be asking only whether he had contact with the Russian government in his capacity as a Trump campaign surrogate. While a jury might accept that defense, there are many reasons to reject it: Sessions’s answer baldly denied any contact. Moreover, Sessions went out of his way to deny contact in response to a question that did not inquire about that subject. By doing so, he preempted an important line of inquiry that might otherwise have been fruitfully pursued.
Certainly there is precedent for a prosecution in this context. Part of the fallout from Watergate included the special prosecutor’s investigation of Richard Kleindienst, who had resigned from his position as attorney general, for alleged false statements during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Kleindienst was asked whether the White House had interfered with a Justice Department antitrust action against the International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation. He stated, “I was not interfered with by anybody at the White House” — but President Nixon and one of his top aides had each called Kleindienst regarding the case. Kleindienst pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge for 'refus[ing] and fail[ing] to answer accurately and fully' questions at a congressional hearing.
Those facts left no room for any colorable defense on the 'knowledge' issue. But when Justice Department officials decide whether to bring a case against Sessions — or, more appropriately, when an independent counsel is appointed and resolves that question — this must be done against the backdrop of other perjury cases that the department has chosen over the years to bring. And the department has prosecuted individuals who advanced defenses very similar to Sessions’s arguments here, often where there was far less at stake.
Years ago, for example, one of us (Robbins) represented a defendant named John Patrick Dowd, accused of lying to a grand jury. Dowd was president of a company that had leased a vessel that had dumped 13,500 tons of Philadelphia incinerator ash into the sea. There was no evidence that Dowd was personally involved in the dumping, but his grand jury testimony led to a perjury indictment. Dowd was acquitted of lying to the grand jury when he testified that he didn’t know where the ash went. Yet he was convicted for his negative response to the question: 'You had no idea?' Thus, even a question and answer far vaguer and more ambiguous than the Franken-Sessions exchange were deemed sufficient to justify prosecution.
Or take the classic case of vague questioning: Bronston v. United States. Samuel Bronston had placed his movie production company into bankruptcy and was being questioned about his and the company’s finances. He was asked about, and denied, having any accounts in Swiss banks. Then the obvious follow-up — 'Have you ever?' — to which Bronston replied: 'The company had an account there for about six months.' What Bronston neglected to mention was that he had a large personal Swiss bank account that he closed when he filed to place his company in bankruptcy.
The Supreme Court held that although his responses may have been deceptive and intended to mislead, they did not constitute perjury because they were literally true, and it was the fault of the questioner that he failed to pursue the inquiry further. The Sessions’s situation presents exactly the opposite scenario: Sessions’s response appears to be both literally false and comprehensive, leaving nothing open for further inquiry regarding the nature of his contacts with the Russian government during the presidential campaign.
Link...https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/federal-prosecutors-have-brought-charges-in-cases-far-less-serious-than-sessionss/2017/03/03/d4345396-003d-11e7-8ebe-6e0dbe4f2bca_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-d%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.963ca35bec20
AGBF
"Federal prosecutors have brought charges in cases far less serious than Sessions’s"
By Philip Lacovara and Lawrence Robbins March 3 at 5:35 PM
Philip Lacovara was counsel to Watergate special prosecutors Archibald Cox and Leon Jaworski, and also served as deputy U.S. solicitor general responsible for criminal matters, including the 'Bronston' case. Lawrence Robbins has been both an assistant U.S. attorney and assistant to the solicitor general. Lacovara is a lifelong Republican; Robbins contributed to and raised money for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. The views expressed are their own.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions made a seemingly false statement under oath during his confirmation hearing. Admittedly, not every potential perjury case gets prosecuted, and Sessions may well have defenses to such a charge. But as lawyers at the Justice Department and attorneys in private practice who have represented individuals accused in such cases, we can state with assurance: Federal prosecutors have brought charges in cases involving far more trivial misstatements and situations far less consequential than whether a nominee to be the nation’s chief law enforcement officer misled fellow senators during his confirmation hearings.
Sessions’s problematic statement involves his response to a question by Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) about what he would do as attorney general 'if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign.' Sessions said he was unaware of any such activities, then volunteered, 'I did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it.' In fact, then-Sen. Sessions (R-Ala.), a top Trump campaign adviser, met at least twice during the presidential campaign with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, The Post revealed.
As any number of witnesses have learned the hard way, it is a federal felony to lie to Congress. Under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, Sections 1001 and 1621, perjury before Congress is punishable by up to five years imprisonment. To prove that offense, a prosecutor would have to establish that Sessions’s answer was false, that he knew it was false when made and that the subject matter of the answer was 'material' to the congressional inquiry in which he was testifying.
Those elements all appear to be present. The element of falsity is established by the conceded fact that he did 'have communications with the Russians' during the Trump campaign. And there can scarcely be any doubt that the subject matter of Sessions’s answer was highly material to the Senate’s consideration of his nomination. Any suggestion that he participated in the suspected interaction between Trump campaign personnel and the Russian government was, and remains, a matter of grave concern.
That leaves one element: Did Sessions know that his answer was false? He says no, asserting that he understood Franken to be asking only whether he had contact with the Russian government in his capacity as a Trump campaign surrogate. While a jury might accept that defense, there are many reasons to reject it: Sessions’s answer baldly denied any contact. Moreover, Sessions went out of his way to deny contact in response to a question that did not inquire about that subject. By doing so, he preempted an important line of inquiry that might otherwise have been fruitfully pursued.
Certainly there is precedent for a prosecution in this context. Part of the fallout from Watergate included the special prosecutor’s investigation of Richard Kleindienst, who had resigned from his position as attorney general, for alleged false statements during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Kleindienst was asked whether the White House had interfered with a Justice Department antitrust action against the International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation. He stated, “I was not interfered with by anybody at the White House” — but President Nixon and one of his top aides had each called Kleindienst regarding the case. Kleindienst pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge for 'refus[ing] and fail[ing] to answer accurately and fully' questions at a congressional hearing.
Those facts left no room for any colorable defense on the 'knowledge' issue. But when Justice Department officials decide whether to bring a case against Sessions — or, more appropriately, when an independent counsel is appointed and resolves that question — this must be done against the backdrop of other perjury cases that the department has chosen over the years to bring. And the department has prosecuted individuals who advanced defenses very similar to Sessions’s arguments here, often where there was far less at stake.
Years ago, for example, one of us (Robbins) represented a defendant named John Patrick Dowd, accused of lying to a grand jury. Dowd was president of a company that had leased a vessel that had dumped 13,500 tons of Philadelphia incinerator ash into the sea. There was no evidence that Dowd was personally involved in the dumping, but his grand jury testimony led to a perjury indictment. Dowd was acquitted of lying to the grand jury when he testified that he didn’t know where the ash went. Yet he was convicted for his negative response to the question: 'You had no idea?' Thus, even a question and answer far vaguer and more ambiguous than the Franken-Sessions exchange were deemed sufficient to justify prosecution.
Or take the classic case of vague questioning: Bronston v. United States. Samuel Bronston had placed his movie production company into bankruptcy and was being questioned about his and the company’s finances. He was asked about, and denied, having any accounts in Swiss banks. Then the obvious follow-up — 'Have you ever?' — to which Bronston replied: 'The company had an account there for about six months.' What Bronston neglected to mention was that he had a large personal Swiss bank account that he closed when he filed to place his company in bankruptcy.
The Supreme Court held that although his responses may have been deceptive and intended to mislead, they did not constitute perjury because they were literally true, and it was the fault of the questioner that he failed to pursue the inquiry further. The Sessions’s situation presents exactly the opposite scenario: Sessions’s response appears to be both literally false and comprehensive, leaving nothing open for further inquiry regarding the nature of his contacts with the Russian government during the presidential campaign.
(snip)
Link...https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/federal-prosecutors-have-brought-charges-in-cases-far-less-serious-than-sessionss/2017/03/03/d4345396-003d-11e7-8ebe-6e0dbe4f2bca_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-d%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.963ca35bec20
AGBF
E B
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2005
- Messages
- 9,491
JoCoJenn|1488588681|4136206 said:DING DING DING
Surely you took this same position with Hillary, right?
Girl.I haven't seen anyone yet say it's absolutely, 100% true, here at PS at least. Only that there's a looooootta smoke, and frustration with the fact that congressional republicans seem to be saying, "What smoke? It's simply a cloudy month!"
This is weird, and potentially yuge, and unfolding among the other chaos in what seems like hourly chunks. You bet your behinds we're gonna discuss developments!
E B
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2005
- Messages
- 9,491
I was listening to one of my favorite podcasts (Pod Save America, by a bunch of guys who worked closely with Obama from his early candidacy, so unabashedly partisan) and the two discussing this issue brought up some good points. Some specifics about the two meetings, but more importantly, the reminder that there is, generally, pretty exhaustive prep for these cabinet hearings. And Russia was one of, if not THE biggest story surrounding the President then. They said the chances of him not knowing the questions about Russia- and his possible involvement- were coming was pretty slim.
Of course, this isn't proof, and perjury is (as far as I've read) hard to prove. It's just yet another oddity. It suggests that little to no prep was done (and thus, he didn't remember), or he was lying.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-cabinet-picks-confirmation-hearings-233322 (Published before the hearings.)
Sen. Jeff Sessions, Trump’s choice for attorney general and the first to face a Senate panel, is spending Sunday in the mock hearing room to prep for his hearing Tuesday before the Judiciary Committee — the same body that sank his nomination to be a federal judge 30 years ago amid allegations of racism.
Although his two decades in the Senate are expected to make Sessions’ confirmation a slam dunk, neither he nor the transition team is leaving anything to chance.
Of course, this isn't proof, and perjury is (as far as I've read) hard to prove. It's just yet another oddity. It suggests that little to no prep was done (and thus, he didn't remember), or he was lying.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-cabinet-picks-confirmation-hearings-233322 (Published before the hearings.)
Sen. Jeff Sessions, Trump’s choice for attorney general and the first to face a Senate panel, is spending Sunday in the mock hearing room to prep for his hearing Tuesday before the Judiciary Committee — the same body that sank his nomination to be a federal judge 30 years ago amid allegations of racism.
Although his two decades in the Senate are expected to make Sessions’ confirmation a slam dunk, neither he nor the transition team is leaving anything to chance.
- Joined
- May 11, 2013
- Messages
- 7,570
ruby59|1488576088|4136128 said:
Clinton and the Democratic party were accused of using the Khans.
http://mondaymondaynetwork.com/politics/donald-trump/crooked-clinton-democrats-use-gold-star-family-political-tool/
http://www.salon.com/2016/08/04/ann_coulter_on_the_khan_parents_democrats_find_victims_to_make_their_arguments_for_them/
Red, do some reading before you believe what the Washington Times, and their ilk print. It's a total lie that Obama sent money to Israel to influence the Israeli election. today we must fact check liberal and right wing nut job sites.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/25/blog-posting/blog-claims-us-funded-anti-netanyahu-election-effo/
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2012
- Messages
- 7,329
You talking to me? I did not do anything with the Washington Times.
ruby59
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 3,553
Tekate|1488646425|4136421 said:
First off, I posted that, not Red.
Second, this article is just speculation on their part, because they keep shifting back and forth in their opinion. And it is just their opinion since they were not there anymore then any other news organization was.
Even they are saying mostly false rather than pants on fire lie.
But of course give Wonder Boy the benefit of the doubt.
As far as the two articles about the Khans, so because the Republicans chided the Democrats, they are not going to chide the Republicans for doing the same thing they did.
I am not questioning whether the mother spoke or not, but that they were on stage at the convention. Same as this woman was sitting with Ivanka during Trump's speech.
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 33,852
Russian or no Russian involvement. HRC lost the election b/c she ran on a 3rd term of failed Obama policies. HC should have beaten Trump by at least 50 Electoral College votes, so all Dems. should keep in mind that w/o a Prez. Obama there would not be a Prez. Trump in office today.AnnaH|1488583045|4136180 said:
AnnaH
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2013
- Messages
- 1,262
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 33,852
,then why all the PS Dems. refuse to believe the truth?... 
ruby59
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 3,553
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2003
- Messages
- 22,161
Dancing Fire|1488668494|4136541 said:
That might be reworded to read, "without there having been a black president, there would not be a President Trump in office today". Trump was able to scour the US for every racist and misogynist who had ever hated seeing the Obamas in The White House, and there were plenty of them. Look at his rallies and what was chanted there. It was disgusting! The worst America has to offer.
Also: don't tell me we have to wait to see if Trump did anything wrong about Russia. We have to wait to see of he colluded with he Russians in attempting to throw the US elections. We already know that he did something wrong: he defended Russia and Vladimir Putin against US interests verbally on many occasions. Putin, who murders journalists and attorneys, is indefensible. Trump is way off track and acting in an un-American way. He should never have equated what Putin does with what he US does; the two are not analogous.
AGBF
ruby59
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 3,553
AGBF|1488711395|4136703 said:
I voted for Obama both times. I live in a democratic state that will never turn red. In speaking with friends, neighbors, etc, most voted for him as well. Not the same with Hillary. Many of them just did not vote. They did not like Trump, but could not vote for Hillary, either.
So Obama being black had nothing to do with the experiences I have encountered. Most did not vote for Hillary not because Obama was black, but because they did not like the direction the country was going in.
Do you also feel that black people who had not voted in decades or at all voted for Obama because he IS black?
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2003
- Messages
- 22,161
ruby59|1488737632|4136821 said:
Actually, Obama was loved by so many (despite the racists) that he probably would have been elected to a third term had it been legal. So the direction of the country argument is baloney. This was purely personal against Hillary as a woman and an individual. But never forget as a woman.
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2014
- Messages
- 20,013
AGBF|1488711395|4136703 said:
Well said, Deb. Couldn't agree more, especially about the bolded. Trump has already done things that are wrong--we are only waiting for evidence of collusion around the election itself. But no need to wait to see if he's done things wrong--that has already been shown.
ruby59
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 3,553
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2012
- Messages
- 20,218
ruby59|1488738334|4136828 said:
There is no solidarity among women. I'm shocked this is something you have to ask at this point. But many women don't respect that she stayed with her husband. Many women still believe females aren't capable of doing the same job as well as a man. Many women judge other females more harshly than men on their looks, clothes, hairstyle, personality. Judge her parenting skills or how feminine she is. If she's a bitch....
Women don't like women. And before you tell me this doesn't apply to you keep in mind I'm talking about women in general, and just answering you're question as to what a woman would have against another woman. We're pitted against each other in this patriarchal society and it has a profound effect on our views. It's ingrained in our culture and I think most women have prejudices against other women, if we admit to it or not.
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2014
- Messages
- 20,013
ruby59
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 3,553
Niel|1488739543|4136833 said:
I can only speak for this woman.
Where did I reference not voting for Hillary because she put up with Bill's affairs. I have been married to my first and only husband for 35+ years. So obviously I did not jump ship at the least problem in our marriage.
I have never been a woman to primp excessively or be a clothes horse. I have to dress a certain way for work but then I dress for comfort.
I have very long hair even at my age that I put up for work and down if I feel like it. If anything people judge why I still have long hair at my age.
Chelsea is a lovely woman and if Hillary likes pantsuits, bully for her.
As for her being a b*tch, I did not like some of the comments she made in her emails. It is not that she is a b*tch, but she is a "closet" one.
Nothing of what you posted about Hillary even crossed my mind, except for the fact that "yes" her leaked emails made me question her not as a woman, but a person.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2003
- Messages
- 22,161
ruby59
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 3,553
ruby59
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 3,553
AGBF|1488740383|4136840 said:lovedogs|1488739946|4136835 said:Niel|1488739543|4136833 said:
Give me a pink hat to wear with you two here on Pricescope, Niel and lovedogs!
In sisterhood,
Deb
I know you are a very educated woman, AGBF, so do you really believe that the majority of women did not vote for Hillary because she is a woman?
And which women would that be - Repubs or Dems?
Past, Present, Future: The Meaning of Three-Stone Engagement Rings
Past, Present, Future: The Meaning of Three-Stone Engagement Rings - 04/14
300x240.png)