US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7006

On March 02 2017 13:47 ticklishmusic wrote:


you're a lawyer right? every lawyer i've worked with has gone with has gone by the rule that if something is kinda iffy, you go ahead and disclose it so it doesn't bite you in the ass if it comes out because it looks like you're hiding something. so really, you only don't disclose if you're hiding something.

none of this "well technically... shit".

On March 02 2017 13:50 ShoCkeyy wrote:
xDaunt but the first sentence in that WaPo article states the source is coming from the same department Sessions is heading. And still, wouldn't meeting with a Russian diplomat still be some what suspicious on all fronts?

On March 02 2017 13:52 xDaunt wrote:

In what context? There's a big difference between disclosure in transactions and disclosure when questioned under oath in a confrontational setting. In the former context, you often do want to volunteer lots of stuff. In the latter, you basically never do.

On March 02 2017 14:00 ticklishmusic wrote:


i like how you dropped "confrontational setting" in there.

im a regular old verbal discussion to go over matters, maybe you are a little more conservative. when you're testifying under oath that's a different matter where you are held to a much higher standard (i would argue similar to a written disclosure), and there are proportionate penalties for misrepresentations. obviously you don't shoot yourself in the foot, but willful omission is definitely a problem.

On March 02 2017 14:06 xDaunt wrote:

I should have said "adversarial" (it's been a long day, and I'm having a drink). But the point is that in adversarial hearings where you are being questioned under oath, you basically never should volunteer anything. And the reason why you don't volunteer things is because no good will ever come of it if the questioner knows what he's doing. It's not your job to help build the other side's case. The examiner will either ask the right questions or he won't. Regardless, the witness can never beat the examiner, but oh so many try.

On March 02 2017 13:54 xDaunt wrote:

The article isn't about the meetings. The point of the article is to insinuate that Sessions did something wrong by not disclosing the meetings.

“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.

She added that 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.

On March 02 2017 12:39 xDaunt wrote:
So close to perjury, but so far. Democrats need to learn to ask better questions.

On March 02 2017 14:10 ticklishmusic wrote:


and then the sordid truth emerges and you're fucked. well, if republicans have the shred of morality to actually go after it anyways.

On March 02 2017 14:12 xDaunt wrote:

There is a huge difference between lying under oath and declining to answer a question that wasn't asked. I'd hope that you appreciate the distinction, but I'm having my doubts.

On March 02 2017 14:13 ticklishmusic wrote:


sorry, i made an edit:

beyond that, this is rather different from a hearing/ trial where discovery has taken place and various verbal representations can be validated against that.

Richard Painter, the former White House ethics lawyer to President George W. Bush from 2005 to 2007, blasted Attorney General Jeff Sessions after it was reported that he spoke with the Russian ambassador while Trump was on the campaign trail.

When asked in the hypothetical during his confirmation hearing as Attorney General what he would do if he learned a member of Trump's campaign had communicated with the Russian government over the course of the 2016 campaign, Sessions responded: “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.”

But the Washington Post reported Wednesday night that Sessions had spoken to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak twice during 2016, once in a private conversation.
Officials said Sessions did not consider his conversations with Kislyak relevant to the lawmakers’ questions and did not remember their discussion in detail. And as a senior member of the committee, he regularly met foreign ambassadors, his spokeswoman said.

Painter blasted the statement on Twitter.

"Misleading the Senate in sworn testimony about one own contacts with the Russians is a good way to go to jail," Painter tweeted.

Painter is now a professor of law at the University of Minnesota.

That September conversation between Sessions and Kislyak took place during the same time intelligence officials have said Russia was interfering with the U.S. presidential election through a hacking and influence campaign.