Jeff Sessions Met Twice With Russian Ambassador During Trump Campaign

Recent Forum Topics Forums The Public House Jeff Sessions Met Twice With Russian Ambassador During Trump Campaign

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #65724
    zn
    Moderator

    Jeff Sessions Met Twice With Russian Ambassador During Trump Campaign

    Monterey Herald via ZUMA; Bao Dandan/Xinhua via ZUMA
    And now here comes the Washington Post on contacts between the Trump team and Russia:

    Then-Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) spoke twice last year with Russia’s ambassador to the United States, Justice Department officials said, encounters he did not disclose when asked about possible contacts between members of President Trump’s campaign and representatives of Moscow during Sessions’s confirmation hearing to become attorney general.

    One of the meetings was a private conversation between Sessions and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak that took place in September in the senator’s office, at the height of what U.S. intelligence officials say was a Russian cyber campaign to upend the U.S. presidential race.

    ….Officials said Sessions did not consider the conversations relevant to the lawmakers’ questions and did not remember in detail what he discussed with Kislyak.

    That was Mike Flynn’s initial answer too, wasn’t it? That he “didn’t remember” the details of a conversation from less than half a year ago. I wonder how long Sessions’ version will hold up?

    Can we all now agree that maybe Sessions really does need to recuse himself from the FBI’s investigation of Trump’s ties to Russia?

    ===
    ===

    Sessions met with Russian envoy twice last year, encounters he later did not disclose

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sessions-spoke-twice-with-russian-ambassador-during-trumps-presidential-campaign-justice-officials-say/2017/03/01/77205eda-feac-11e6-99b4-9e613afeb09f_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_no-name%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.5ee299785ae5

    Then-Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) spoke twice last year with Russia’s ambassador to the United States, Justice Department officials said, encounters he did not disclose when asked about possible contacts between members of President Trump’s campaign and representatives of Moscow during Sessions’s confirmation hearing to become attorney general.

    One of the meetings was a private conversation between Sessions and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak that took place in September in the senator’s office, at the height of what U.S. intelligence officials say was a Russian cyber campaign to upend the U.S. presidential race.

    The previously undisclosed discussions could fuel new congressional calls for the appointment of a special counsel to investigate Russia’s alleged role in the 2016 presidential election. As attorney general, Sessions oversees the Justice Department and the FBI, which have been leading investigations into Russian meddling and any links to Trump’s associates. He has so far resisted calls to recuse himself.

    When Sessions spoke with Kislyak in July and September, the senator was a senior member of the influential Armed Services Committee as well as one of Trump’s top foreign policy advisers. Sessions played a prominent role supporting Trump on the stump after formally joining the campaign in February 2016.

    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.

    “There was absolutely nothing misleading about his answer,” said Sarah Isgur Flores, Sessions’s spokeswoman.

    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.

    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.

    In the case of the September meeting, one department official who came to the defense of the attorney general said, “There’s just not strong recollection of what was said.”

    The Russian ambassador did not respond to requests for comment about his contacts with Sessions.

    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.

    “Members of the committee have not been beating a path to Kislyak’s door,” a senior Senate Armed Services Committee staffer said, citing tensions in relations with Moscow. Besides Sessions, the staffer added, “There haven’t been a ton of members who are looking to meet with Kislyak for their committee duties.”

    Last month, The Washington Post reported that Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn had discussed U.S. sanctions with Kislyak during the month before Trump took office, contrary to public assertions by Mike Pence, the vice president-elect, and other top Trump officials. Flynn was forced to resign the following week.

    When asked to comment on Sessions’s contacts with Kislyak, Franken said in a statement to The Washington Post on Wednesday: “If it’s true that Attorney General Sessions met with the Russian ambassador in the midst of the campaign, then I am very troubled that his response to my questioning during his confirmation hearing was, at best, misleading.”

    Franken added: “It is now clearer than ever that the attorney general cannot, in good faith, oversee an investigation at the Department of Justice and the FBI of the Trump-Russia connection, and he must recuse himself immediately.”

    Current and former U.S. officials say they see Kislyak as a diplomat, not an intelligence operative. But they were not sure to what extent, if any, Kislyak was aware of or involved in the covert Russian election campaign.

    Steven Hall, former head of Russia operations at the CIA, said that Russia would have been keenly interested in cultivating a relationship with Sessions because of his role on key congressional committees and as an early adviser to Trump.

    Sessions’s membership on the Armed Services Committee would have made him a priority for the Russian ambassador. “The fact that he had already placed himself at least ideologically behind Trump would have been an added bonus for Kislyak,” Hall said.

    Michael McFaul, a Stanford University professor who until 2014 served as U.S. ambassador to Russia, said he was not surprised that Kislyak would seek a meeting with Sessions. “The weird part is to conceal it,” he said. “That was at the height of all the discussions of what Russia was doing during the election.”

    Two months before the September meeting, Sessions attended a Heritage Foundation event in July on the sidelines of the Republican National Convention that was attended by roughly 50 ambassadors. When the event was over, a small group of ambassadors approached Sessions as he was leaving the podium, and Kislyak was among them, the Justice Department official said.

    Sessions then spoke individually to some of the ambassadors, including Kislyak, the official said. In the informal exchanges, the ambassadors expressed appreciation for his remarks and some of them invited him to events they were sponsoring, said the official, citing a former Sessions staffer who was at the event.

    Democratic lawmakers, including senior members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, have demanded in recent weeks that Sessions recuse himself from the government’s inquiry into possible ties between Trump associates and Russia.

    Last week, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee, became one of the few Republican representatives to state publicly the need for an independent investigation.

    Sessions’s public position on Russia has evolved over time.

    In an interview with RealClear World on the sidelines of the German Marshall Fund’s Brussels Forum in March 2015, Sessions said the United States and Europe “have to unify” against Russia.

    More than a year later, he spoke about fostering a stronger relationship with the Kremlin. In a July 2016 interview with CNN’s “State of the Union,” Sessions praised Trump’s plan to build better relations with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    “Donald Trump is right. We need to figure out a way to end this cycle of hostility that’s putting this country at risk, costing us billions of dollars in defense, and creating hostilities,” Sessions told CNN.

    Asked whether he viewed Putin as a good or bad leader, Sessions told CNN: “We have a lot of bad leaders around the world that operate in ways we would never tolerate in the United States. But the question is, can we have a more peaceful, effective relationship with Russia? Utilizing interests that are similar in a realistic way to make this world a safer place and get off this dangerous hostility with Russia? I think it’s possible.”

    #65737
    zn
    Moderator

    Bush’s ethics lawyer on Sessions talks with Russia ambassador: ‘Good way to go to jail’

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/321936-ethics-lawyer-to-george-w-bush-on-sessions-talks-with-russa

    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.

    TAGS

    #65744
    Zooey
    Moderator

    It is very difficult to imagine, at this point, that there is not a significant problem.

    I no longer think we are looking at just the sole act of dumping DNC emails in an effort to tip the scales towards Trump. This isn’t just about a foreign policy preference.

    There is an entire tangled web of financial shadiness happening here, and I can’t see the administration surviving an honest inquiry. Even if the financial stuff is all “legal,” there are clearly significant ties here that completely compromise Trump’s ability to be impartial on behalf of the USA. He is in this up to his neck in all likelihood, and clearly Tillerson and Ross are without question.

    #65745
    wv
    Participant

    It is very difficult to imagine, at this point, that there is not a significant problem.

    I no longer think we are looking at just the sole act of dumping DNC emails in an effort to tip the scales towards Trump. This isn’t just about a foreign policy preference.

    There is an entire tangled web of financial shadiness happening here, and I can’t see the administration surviving an honest inquiry. Even if the financial stuff is all “legal,” there are clearly significant ties here that completely compromise Trump’s ability to be impartial on behalf of the USA. He is in this up to his neck in all likelihood, and clearly Tillerson and Ross are without question.

    ————
    Well Its not that i disagree with your description of the ‘tangled web of financial shadiness’ but…I dont thihk the the ‘american people’ are gonna care.
    I mean Trumps base certainly wont care. And the Dems have zero credibility themselves so whatever they do will look like the usual partisanship-games.

    I just think we are past the time when a President can be impeached. The entire system is now BASED on corruption and money and money-influence. The SYSTEM should be ‘impeached’ but it wont be.

    Frankly, i think Trump would be more likely to get in trouble for a sex scandal or some BS crap like that. THAT might annoy the voters. Ah well.

    wv cynic

    #65753
    nittany ram
    Moderator

    It is very difficult to imagine, at this point, that there is not a significant problem.

    I no longer think we are looking at just the sole act of dumping DNC emails in an effort to tip the scales towards Trump. This isn’t just about a foreign policy preference.

    There is an entire tangled web of financial shadiness happening here, and I can’t see the administration surviving an honest inquiry. Even if the financial stuff is all “legal,” there are clearly significant ties here that completely compromise Trump’s ability to be impartial on behalf of the USA. He is in this up to his neck in all likelihood, and clearly Tillerson and Ross are without question.

    ————
    Well Its not that i disagree with your description of the ‘tangled web of financial shadiness’ but…I dont thihk the the ‘american people’ are gonna care.
    I mean Trumps base certainly wont care. And the Dems have zero credibility themselves so whatever they do will look like the usual partisanship-games.

    I just think we are past the time when a President can be impeached. The entire system is now BASED on corruption and money and money-influence. The SYSTEM should be ‘impeached’ but it wont be.

    Frankly, i think Trump would be more likely to get in trouble for a sex scandal or some BS crap like that. THAT might annoy the voters. Ah well.

    wv cynic

    It’s true that Trump’s supporters won’t care. But the majority of the American people care. Trump was the first president ever elected with an approval rating below 50%. Then it got worse. I’m sure his speech gave him a bump up but it won’t last.

    The problem is that Congress in controlled by the Republicans. And Trump is doing exactly what the Republicans always wanted (increase military spending, decrease domestic spending, dismantle environmental protections, etc) so why would they impeach him? And even if they did, they won’t impeach Trump’s VP and his cabinet, so impeaching him probably wouldn’t change much.

    So ultimately, you’re right. There’s no bright side to be had. The stuff Trump has put in motion won’t be reversed for at least four years and by then, if it happens, a lot of stuff is gonna be irrevocably f’d up.

    #65764
    Zooey
    Moderator
    Well Its not that i disagree with your description of the ‘tangled web of financial shadiness’ but…I dont thihk the the ‘american people’ are gonna care.
    I mean Trumps base certainly wont care. And the Dems have zero credibility themselves so whatever they do will look like the usual partisanship-games.

    I just think we are past the time when a President can be impeached. The entire system is now BASED on corruption and money and money-influence. The SYSTEM should be ‘impeached’ but it wont be.

    Frankly, i think Trump would be more likely to get in trouble for a sex scandal or some BS crap like that. THAT might annoy the voters. Ah well.

    wv cynic

    It’s true that Trump’s supporters won’t care. But the majority of the American people care. Trump was the first president ever elected with an approval rating below 50%. Then it got worse. I’m sure his speech gave him a bump up but it won’t last.

    The problem is that Congress in controlled by the Republicans. And Trump is doing exactly what the Republicans always wanted (increase military spending, decrease domestic spending, dismantle environmental protections, etc) so why would they impeach him? And even if they did, they won’t impeach Trump’s VP and his cabinet, so impeaching him probably wouldn’t change much.

    So ultimately, you’re right. There’s no bright side to be had. The stuff Trump has put in motion won’t be reversed for at least four years and by then, if it happens, a lot of stuff is gonna be irrevocably f’d up.

    Of course Trump’s “base” won’t care. 28% of people thought Bush was doing a great job as president when his popularity was at its nadir. Those people wouldn’t have lost faith in Trump if he had slammed his penis on the podium like a gavel during his speech to congress the other night. I mean…28% of this country is religiously devoted to total stupidity. So I don’t even worry about his “base.” Their opinions are the cost of doing business, like a retailer who just calculates that he is going to lose x% to shoplifting. So I write them out of the equation from the beginning.

    28% will support the most right wing thing they can find. Period.

    Okay, fine.

    What I said was I don’t think he can survive an “honest inquiry.”

    So the question is, “will there be an honest inquiry?” and the answer is, of course, no. But there WILL be an inquiry, and it will be more honest than dishonest, with everyone trying to shine light on some things, and deflect from others, but these things have a way of getting batted around like a beachball at baseball game. No one person can control the way things spin.

    There are a few scenarios that could lead to Trump’s impeachment: 1) the investigation takes a life of its own and gets too sordid to ignore the ties. Smoking gun evidence is impossible to avoid. 2) The investigation threatens to affect the way business happens in government generally speaking, i.e. ALL these zillionaires have compromising ties to other governments and businesses, and a sweeping move to shine light on those dealings, and limit them, scares the shit out of everybody, so they throw Trump under the bus to just shut down the entire line of inquiry before it hurts all the grifters. 3) The polls for a significant number of congressmen start approaching that 28% floor as the entire GOP gets tarnished. Hell, not 28%. Depending on the district, 49% will scare many of them. And while they want many of the things Trump promises to do for them, they want re-election even more, and there will be a point where Trump just becomes too poisonous.

    I’ve said this since the election. I do not think Trump will make it through his complete term. (Well, I said 50/50). But I think the odds are getting worse for him.

    Watch those Maddow videos I posted yesterday or the day before. When Reuters and AP start referencing that stuff, Trump’s presidency will be put on life support.

    #65765
    Zooey
    Moderator

    And I will add…in the meantime, this DOES matter because it will make it that much harder for him to do all this insane shit he wants to do. With so many people watching, it will be hard for those assholes to pass that bill that terminates the EPA at the end of 2018, and that kind of thing. It makes it more demoralizing to the righties, and more invigorating to the resistors.

    It DOES matter, even if Trump escapes this particular noose.

    #65778
    wv
    Participant

    I’ve said this since the election. I do not think Trump will make it through his complete term. (Well, I said 50/50). But I think the odds are getting worse for him.

    Watch those Maddow videos I posted yesterday or the day before. When Reuters and AP start referencing that stuff, Trump’s presidency will be put on life support.

    ————-

    Well i hope you are right, but my own crystal ball sez its more likely Trump will get eight years as Prez.

    w
    v

    #65779
    PA Ram
    Participant

    The iceberg is getting bigger.

    I don’t know how this all ends, but the Republicans will still be in control so…

    I do wonder how insane batshit crazy the right would be if this was Obama or Clinton. It’s all about political team now. Not country.

    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. " Philip K. Dick

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.