I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that Senate confirmation hearings are under oath, and therefore Sessions has perjured himself. Last I checked, perjury was a felony.
"... the Attorney General must resign. Sessions is not fit to serve as the top law enforcement officer of our country and must resign. There must be an independent, bipartisan, outside commission to investigate the Trump political, personal and financial connections to the Russians."
I really hope I'm cynical and wrong but I doubt it. Without congressional investigations nothing will happen. So far they haven't really stood up to Trump on anything else, not sure why they'd start now.
Maybe after they repeal the ACA and cut taxes on the rich they do something, but they'll need Trumps cooperation to make those first two things happen.
While that may be true, I think what this boils down to is a form of prosecutorial discretion, where the discretion is in the hands of the ruling party.
Assuming that Congress wants to make the actual precedent of pushing for criminal charges for perjury (hint: they don't) you would have to actually establish that perjury occurred. He was asked about whether he discussed the election, not whether he discussed anything at all.
The press really is running with this Russia stuff though. It's pretty impressive. What exactly is the angle? Why did Russia want Trump to win? Did he promise to hand over the Crimea or something? Does anyone know?
There is currently a developing story about how various players intersect in the Ukraine. The short version is the Trump lifts sanctions against Russia, a Ukranian politician named Artemenko leads the charge to oust the current Ukranian president Poroshenko on corruption charges, and Russia keeps Crimea. This was outlined in a document hand-delivered to Michael Flynn, the disgraced/resigned National Security Advisor, by Michael Cohen, Trump's longtime personal lawyer with massive interests in the Ukraine.
It's an unholy mess and Talking Points Memo seems to be doing the best job of tracking this facet of the ongoing trainwreck.
There's also this fantastic New Yorker story just published that outlines the Russian position generally. Shorter: fucking with the U.S. was worth it to push back against American arrogance and to assert Russian worth on the world stage; didn't expect it to work this well.
> Why did Russia want Trump to win? Did he promise to hand over the Crimea or something?
I was listening to this today [1], and it explained that Russia fully expected Clinton to win, and was just looking to make her presidency chaotic. You know had Hillary won, and news of Russian "hacking" reached Republicans, they would be reacting just as the Democrats are now, calling for investigations and lobbying charges of collusion with the Russians against Clinton. Trump even primed the base to accept that line of attack, calling the election rigged when it looked like he was going to lose (since that's always his reaction when he starts to lose).
That Trump won came as a shock to Putin, and now after a brief honeymoon with Trump, Putin has ordered to dial back praising Trump on national media.
So really, there may be no direct link between the Trump campaign and Russian meddling, but they certainly aren't doing themselves favors by lying about it. I could understand that the optics look bad, given the circumstances, but being caught lying about it looks exponentially worse, especially since sessions previously refused to recuse himself from the investigation into said contacts with Russians!
There is nothing here to prove that he perjured himself.
From the article:
In January, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) asked Sessions for answers to written questions. “Several of the President-elect’s nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?” Leahy wrote.
Sessions responded with one word: “No.”
Justice officials said Sessions met with Kislyak on Sept. 8 in his capacity as a member of the armed services panel rather than in his role as a Trump campaign surrogate.
“He was asked during the hearing about communications between Russia and the Trump campaign — not about meetings he took as a senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee,” Flores said.
___
Unless they can prove that the meeting was related to the election then it seems unlikely that this was perjury.
On Wednesday, a Justice Department official confirmed that Mr. Sessions had two conversations with Ambassador Kislyak last year, when he was still a senator, despite testifying at his Jan. 10 confirmation hearing that he had no contact with the Russians. At that hearing, Mr. Sessions was asked what he would do if it turned out to be true that anyone affiliated with the Trump team had communicated with the Russian government in the course of the campaign. He said he was “not aware of any of those activities.”
“I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I didn’t have — did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it,” Mr. Sessions said at the time.
"I have been called a surrogate at a time or two on that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians. Um. And I'm unable to comment on it."
It's funny how all logic completely goes out the window when politics is concerned. Otherwise super bright people I know just start uttering the most random of things. Welcome to politics as sport. As long as my team is winning, who cares.
The question posed to him during the hearing was did he meet with Russian government about the campaign. Senators meet ambassadors. It's what they do. As long as he didn't negotiate for Trump, it's all good.
That being said, a special bipartisan prosecutor makes sense. Session should recuse himself from this issue.
According to the article it was the written question submitted by Sen. Leahy that limited itself to communications specifically discussing the campaign.
The oral question by Sen. Franken was more open ended, and Sessions response seemed even less ambiguous.
At his Jan. 10 Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing,
Sessions was asked by Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) what he
would do if he learned of any evidence that anyone
affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the
Russian government in the course of the 2016 campaign.
“I’m not aware of any of those activities,” he responded. He
added: “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in
that campaign and I did not have communications with the
Russians.”
Officials said Sessions did not consider the conversations
relevant to the lawmakers’ questions and did not remember in
detail what he discussed with Kislyak.
I don't think there's any kind of conspiracy involving Russia. But clearly there was a conspiracy among the Russians to effect the campaign. And there _might_ be something of a conspiracy within Trump's camp in the sense that they're intentionally circling the wagons regarding Trump's preferred Russian policy. I wouldn't speculate about the motivations behind Trump's preferences because they're probably numerous and not even necessarily coherent; more like a general coincidence of interests that both Trump and Russia would like to exploit.
The Fourth Estate is doing its job. Whatever the truth is, the pressure from respected institutions like the Washington Post and New York Times will be a big part of why we eventually find it. I am proud that the press is holding the government accountable.
And this is the reason why I finally canceled the WSJ subscription. BTW, just want to applaud to NYTimes and Washington Post for the great job they have been doing under such pressure from Trump.
Finally! Just after decades of support, NYT doesn't like current administration. Real journalism would be NYT asking to revoke Obama's Nobel prize. Did I miss this masterpiece?
The guy who wants to be the country's top lawyer was caught perjuring himself in front of congress. Republicans in congress can't ignore this without significant loss of face with their constituents.
There are finally investigations being disclosed too. Problem is it seems they want to focus on who illegally leaked the information about contact and meetings.
It's great to see the press bringing the duplicity of Trump's cabinet to light. I worry though that they've inured us to scandal. This would undoubtedly be a debilitating scandal for a normal administration, but at this point I think people almost expect Trump and his appointees to tell big lies.
"Sessions last year had more than 25 conversations with foreign ambassadors as a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, including the British, Korean, Japanese, Polish, Indian, Chinese, Canadian, Australian and German ambassadors, in addition to Kislyak"
Ehh, I probably buy this "I didn't meet him as a Trump surrogate" line(he was head of Senate Armed Services committee?), but this is exactly the kind of pointless reactionary conspiracy fueled pablum that the Trump campaign ran against Clinton. You made the bed, now lay in it.
Meeting with a government ambassador in your role as head of the Senate Armed Services committee and claiming you didn't talk about the election is a far cry from meeting with the Attorney General potentially set to potentially prosecute your wife and claiming you only discussed your grandchildren.
The problem here is that there is objectively no difference between the two scenarios you laid out (because there is no evidence either way). It is purely a matter of "optics" in both situations (trust or lack thereof), so your interpretation is wholly dependent on what other news about that particular person you've read.
It's a good line, but then you read that none of the other members of the Armed Services Committee have confirmed contact with the Russian ambassador. It then reads a bit more like an excuse, albeit possibly an acceptable one.
> The Washington Post contacted all 26 members of the 2016 Senate Armed Services Committee to see whether any lawmakers besides Sessions met with Kislyak in 2016. Of the 20 lawmakers who responded, every senator, including Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.), said they did not meet with the Russian ambassador last year. The other lawmakers on the panel did not respond as of Wednesday evening.
Is speaking to the Russian ambassador somehow illegal? It seems that the accusations here are whether Sessions had contacts with Russia during his time as a Trump campaign surrogate. He did not. So it's not clear to me what the controversy is here.
Apparently speaking to any Russian in this political climate is illegal.
At this rate they'll introduce a resolution soon enough that if you have eaten pierogi in the past 10 years you can't hold a public office.
There are plenty of reasons why one would not disclose a meeting on a public record, from even forgetting it happened to the fact that having it in the open might jeopardise negotiations/operations/assets etc.
It's much easier to get things done in many cases when they are shrouded by secrecy while people might not like it but if we need something from the Russians or want to send them a message sometimes it's best not to be done as an official state visit and vise versa.
Every negotiation at some point started as a non-official meeting in the kitchen of some restaurant somewhere or a hotel lobby.
Clapper directly lied under oath to Congress and nothing happened. This will be no different, the thing that's sad is how hypocritical and partisan the HN community shoes itself to be.
I hear you, but the question is whether HN should become a site that is only about politics. Clearly it should not, and it's our job to make sure that doesn't happen.
HN has had plenty of discussions of the Trump administration. A certain amount is ok—it depends on the story—but the latest news about who may or may not have spoken to an ambassador doesn't come close to the threshold. It's not a borderline call; it's not even in the ball park. If we allow that, we allow everything. In that case politics would certainly take over the site. This story was at #1 before we demoted it!
The worst thing to post or upvote is something that's intensely but shallowly interesting: gossip about famous people, funny or cute pictures or videos, partisan political articles, etc. If you let that sort of thing onto a news site, it will push aside the deeply interesting stuff, which tends to be quieter.
> the latest news about who may or may not have spoken to an ambassador
I agree, that would be a "garden-variety political story." This isn't that story. This is a story about the Attorney General of the United States lying under oath and perjuring himself to Congress.
It doesn't really matter what kind of news aggregator you're running: tech, sports, gardening... that's a story that should be at the top of all of them.
> A story of quite significance to our daily lives is not off topic here.
Well, the site guidelines[1] would disagree with you:
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
Again, If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
I have avoided posting political/ideological arguments in topics that aren't about politics or ideology in the first place. But it's your site and your rules, so consider this account closed.
66 comments
[ 53.2 ms ] story [ 255 ms ] threadIs there any judicial oversight possible?
What happens next?
"... the Attorney General must resign. Sessions is not fit to serve as the top law enforcement officer of our country and must resign. There must be an independent, bipartisan, outside commission to investigate the Trump political, personal and financial connections to the Russians."
Maybe after they repeal the ACA and cut taxes on the rich they do something, but they'll need Trumps cooperation to make those first two things happen.
Assuming that Congress wants to make the actual precedent of pushing for criminal charges for perjury (hint: they don't) you would have to actually establish that perjury occurred. He was asked about whether he discussed the election, not whether he discussed anything at all.
The press really is running with this Russia stuff though. It's pretty impressive. What exactly is the angle? Why did Russia want Trump to win? Did he promise to hand over the Crimea or something? Does anyone know?
It's an unholy mess and Talking Points Memo seems to be doing the best job of tracking this facet of the ongoing trainwreck.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/19/us/politics/donald-trump-...
There's also this fantastic New Yorker story just published that outlines the Russian position generally. Shorter: fucking with the U.S. was worth it to push back against American arrogance and to assert Russian worth on the world stage; didn't expect it to work this well.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/06/trump-putin-and...
I was listening to this today [1], and it explained that Russia fully expected Clinton to win, and was just looking to make her presidency chaotic. You know had Hillary won, and news of Russian "hacking" reached Republicans, they would be reacting just as the Democrats are now, calling for investigations and lobbying charges of collusion with the Russians against Clinton. Trump even primed the base to accept that line of attack, calling the election rigged when it looked like he was going to lose (since that's always his reaction when he starts to lose).
That Trump won came as a shock to Putin, and now after a brief honeymoon with Trump, Putin has ordered to dial back praising Trump on national media.
So really, there may be no direct link between the Trump campaign and Russian meddling, but they certainly aren't doing themselves favors by lying about it. I could understand that the optics look bad, given the circumstances, but being caught lying about it looks exponentially worse, especially since sessions previously refused to recuse himself from the investigation into said contacts with Russians!
[1]: https://www.npr.org/player/embed/517994347/517994380
https://twitter.com/RWPUSA/status/837136831405752320
From the article: In January, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) asked Sessions for answers to written questions. “Several of the President-elect’s nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?” Leahy wrote.
Sessions responded with one word: “No.”
Justice officials said Sessions met with Kislyak on Sept. 8 in his capacity as a member of the armed services panel rather than in his role as a Trump campaign surrogate.
“He was asked during the hearing about communications between Russia and the Trump campaign — not about meetings he took as a senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee,” Flores said.
___
Unless they can prove that the meeting was related to the election then it seems unlikely that this was perjury.
----------
On Wednesday, a Justice Department official confirmed that Mr. Sessions had two conversations with Ambassador Kislyak last year, when he was still a senator, despite testifying at his Jan. 10 confirmation hearing that he had no contact with the Russians. At that hearing, Mr. Sessions was asked what he would do if it turned out to be true that anyone affiliated with the Trump team had communicated with the Russian government in the course of the campaign. He said he was “not aware of any of those activities.”
“I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I didn’t have — did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it,” Mr. Sessions said at the time.
"I have been called a surrogate at a time or two on that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians. Um. And I'm unable to comment on it."
The question posed to him during the hearing was did he meet with Russian government about the campaign. Senators meet ambassadors. It's what they do. As long as he didn't negotiate for Trump, it's all good.
That being said, a special bipartisan prosecutor makes sense. Session should recuse himself from this issue.
The oral question by Sen. Franken was more open ended, and Sessions response seemed even less ambiguous.
I don't think there's any kind of conspiracy involving Russia. But clearly there was a conspiracy among the Russians to effect the campaign. And there _might_ be something of a conspiracy within Trump's camp in the sense that they're intentionally circling the wagons regarding Trump's preferred Russian policy. I wouldn't speculate about the motivations behind Trump's preferences because they're probably numerous and not even necessarily coherent; more like a general coincidence of interests that both Trump and Russia would like to exploit.Have you seen NYT's latest online ads? "Truth needs your support. Just $1 a week." So cheesy.
Ehh, I probably buy this "I didn't meet him as a Trump surrogate" line(he was head of Senate Armed Services committee?), but this is exactly the kind of pointless reactionary conspiracy fueled pablum that the Trump campaign ran against Clinton. You made the bed, now lay in it.
> The Washington Post contacted all 26 members of the 2016 Senate Armed Services Committee to see whether any lawmakers besides Sessions met with Kislyak in 2016. Of the 20 lawmakers who responded, every senator, including Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.), said they did not meet with the Russian ambassador last year. The other lawmakers on the panel did not respond as of Wednesday evening.
At this rate they'll introduce a resolution soon enough that if you have eaten pierogi in the past 10 years you can't hold a public office.
There are plenty of reasons why one would not disclose a meeting on a public record, from even forgetting it happened to the fact that having it in the open might jeopardise negotiations/operations/assets etc.
It's much easier to get things done in many cases when they are shrouded by secrecy while people might not like it but if we need something from the Russians or want to send them a message sometimes it's best not to be done as an official state visit and vise versa.
Every negotiation at some point started as a non-official meeting in the kitchen of some restaurant somewhere or a hotel lobby.
Lying about it during a confirmation hearing? Now that's illegal.
https://subscribe.washingtonpost.com/
This kind of thing is off-topic here and would easily deluge the site if we didn't actively prevent it from doing so.
HN has had plenty of discussions of the Trump administration. A certain amount is ok—it depends on the story—but the latest news about who may or may not have spoken to an ambassador doesn't come close to the threshold. It's not a borderline call; it's not even in the ball park. If we allow that, we allow everything. In that case politics would certainly take over the site. This story was at #1 before we demoted it!
The worst thing to post or upvote is something that's intensely but shallowly interesting: gossip about famous people, funny or cute pictures or videos, partisan political articles, etc. If you let that sort of thing onto a news site, it will push aside the deeply interesting stuff, which tends to be quieter.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
I agree, that would be a "garden-variety political story." This isn't that story. This is a story about the Attorney General of the United States lying under oath and perjuring himself to Congress.
It doesn't really matter what kind of news aggregator you're running: tech, sports, gardening... that's a story that should be at the top of all of them.
A story of quite significance to our daily lives is not off topic here.
Well, the site guidelines[1] would disagree with you:
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
Again, If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html