Trump

[John Higgins]

Who's that in the picture? None other than Russian diplomat Kislyak on Tuesday night at Trump's speech sitting with all of his democrat friends. Hmmm, how odd huh?

seskridge stated earlier today about how other Armed Service Committee members said they never met with Russia so Sessions is obviously up to something nefarious by meeting with him. She got this from Claire Mccaskill and this came out as a lie tonight. Claire has numerous tweets talking about her meetings with the Russian ambassador in the last few years. It's common and normal practice for the members to meet with foreign ambassadors. Why would Claire lie about this? Where's the outrage seskridge?

Sessions recused himself from any investigations involving Trump's campaign since he was involved in the campaign. That's the honorable and right thing to do and has nothing to do with guilt or any improprieties.

[ShockingButTrue]

I've voted for Johnson twice, and I've never voted for a Democrat for President.

Donald Trump is my least favorite Presidential candidate, let alone winner. You may think I'm calling him illiterate as baseless smear to make him seem unintelligent, but that is not my purpose. I'm simply calling it as I see it. He avoids reading. He needs cliff-notes. He prefers to watch TV than read policy.

As far as personal failings go, it isn't nearly as big as him abusing his power to creep on women or refuse to pay workers, but it is something I can't stand in a President. When he is signing Executive Orders without reading them (ie, when he put Bannon on the Security Council) it is a national security problem.

If he was making an honest attempt to take in as much information as possible, to get to where a President needs to be I could accept some of his gaffes. But I see a President that either shirks that duty or is incapable of fulfilling it. That is unacceptable to me.

As far as Sessions go, nothing he did was wrong and he was fully in his rights (and duties) to meet with Russia. The issue is that he perjured himself. Even worse, he is supposed to be the nation's top lawyer and he perjured himself volunteering information that wasn't even asked for. That is gross incompetence.

[shocka khan]

Who's that in the picture? None other than Russian diplomat Kislyak on Tuesday night at Trump's speech sitting with all of his democrat friends. Hmmm, how odd huh?

seskridge stated earlier today about how other Armed Service Committee members said they never met with Russia so Sessions is obviously up to something nefarious by meeting with him. She got this from Claire Mccaskill and this came out as a lie tonight. Claire has numerous tweets talking about her meetings with the Russian ambassador in the last few years. It's common and normal practice for the members to meet with foreign ambassadors. Why would Claire lie about this? Where's the outrage seskridge?

Sessions recused himself from any investigations involving Trump's campaign since he was involved in the campaign. That's the honorable and right thing to do and has nothing to do with guilt or any improprieties.

John McCain doesn't meet with the Russian ambassador. He's on their sanctions list. I have a tremendous respect for McCain. Sessions made a horrible mistake by not qualifying his response. He's recused himself. I think this is sufficient, as now this investigation will be led by someone who is not tainted (or appears to be tainted) by this scandal.

By the way, it is not a valuable exercise trying to contort yourself into a position where you actually equivocate what McCaskill did with what Sessions did. McCaskill was being interviewed by a reporter. Sessions was under oath. Not qualifying his response makes it look like he's not being forthcoming.

Here's my question: What the hell are all these foreign ambassadors doing at major political party conventions? And is this going on much more than we know?

Just goes to show you the typical politician is more interested in money than the needs/interests of their constituents. And our government is for sale. Bad enough when its being sold to our folks, but definitely wrong when we have foreigners influencing political process. If our congresscritters want to know what's going on in country XYZ, they should do their investigations when they go on all those taxpayer-funded junkets. God knows they take enough of them.

[John Higgins]

By the way, it is not a valuable exercise trying to contort yourself into a position where you actually equivocate what McCaskill did with what Sessions did. McCaskill was being interviewed by a reporter. Sessions was under oath. Not qualifying his response makes it look like he's not being forthcoming.

I never stated the McCaskill and Sessions situations were similar and didn't imply that either. If we want to compare them though they are very different:

McCaskill purposely lied with the intent of building fervor against a colleague to get them to resign.

Sessions never lied. He answered the question that was asked. If I asked you, "did you go to the Chicago Cubs game 7 in 2016." You answer "no" and leave it at that. I later find out that you attended game 6, does that make you a liar? Of course not, you answered the question that was asked. Should you have elaborated more and said, "No, I didn't attend game 7 but I did go to game 6"? That's up to you but that wasn't the question you were presented with so it doesn't really matter.

[shocka khan]

I never stated the McCaskill and Sessions situations were similar and didn't imply that either. If we want to compare them though they are very different:

McCaskill purposely lied with the intent of building fervor against a colleague to get them to resign.

Sessions never lied. He answered the question that was asked. If I asked you, "did you go to the Chicago Cubs game 7 in 2016." You answer "no" and leave it at that. I later find out that you attended game 6, does that make you a liar? Of course not, you answered the question that was asked. Should you have elaborated more and said, "No, I didn't attend game 7 but I did go to game 6"? That's up to you but that wasn't the question you were presented with so it doesn't really matter.

There you go equivocating again. If someone lies, it's bad. When they lie under oath, it's a crime. I think there is some dispute as to whether he lied under oath, but this whole thing reminds me of the 'depends on what the meaning of the word is is' comment Clinton made about the Lewinsky affair many years ago. Absolutely no way you can compare Sessions to McGaskill. This is going to taint Sessions, no matter whether he parsed his response by accident or on purpose, as it was done under oath (and not to a newspaper reporter).

Quit being a homer. Take a step back and try to clear your mind of your biases. You're not even recognizing what you're doing.

Sort of like all the missed calls that seem to happen when you ref our games.

[shocka khan]

One more note, if Sessions was making those types of statements in a situation where he would have civil liability, he would most definitely have a problem. It's called fraud by omission.

I'd like to see what jdshock thinks of this. I'm thinking he would agree. I investigated an insurance company where this exact thing happened, and our legal staff called it fraud by omission. The company was telling its insured when they complained about their settlement checks that 'there could be nothing wrong, we use a nationally-recognized database to adjudicate our claims.' Problem was, the 'nationally-recognized database' was about 10 years out-of-date.

People with a long and distinguished career in politics should not be playing these sorts of games in a formal hearing in front of his peers.

Note I still support Sessions and I still support Trump, I just want someone who was uninvolved in this whole episode to look at it with an independent view, as if this gets swept under the rug without the truth (whatever it is) coming out, it could well happen to the republicans next time around.

[John Higgins]

I stand by my statement, go read the transcript of the question from Franken. He answered the question he was asked honestly. He answered the written question by Leahy honestly.

Fraud by omission? What was he hiding? It's a common practice for the committee members to meet with foreign ambassadors. I see no evidence that he was trying to hide the Russian ambassador meetings.

[Kung Wu]

There you go equivocating again. If someone lies, it's bad. When they lie under oath, it's a crime. I think there is some dispute as to whether he lied under oath, but this whole thing reminds me of the 'depends on what the meaning of the word is is' comment Clinton made about the Lewinsky affair many years ago. Absolutely no way you can compare Sessions to McGaskill. This is going to taint Sessions, no matter whether he parsed his response by accident or on purpose, as it was done under oath (and not to a newspaper reporter).

Quit being a homer. Take a step back and try to clear your mind of your biases. You're not even recognizing what you're doing.

Sort of like all the missed calls that seem to happen when you ref our games.

Here is the FULL question with CONTEXT (which is conveniently ignored by the leftist media and all the articles you have been reading):

"22. The intelligence community has concluded that Russia intervened in the 2016 election in an effort to help elect Donald Trump. The report is available at https://www.dni.gov/files/ documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf. Russian interference in our elections is larger than any candidate or political party. This is about protecting our democracy.

...

e. 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?"

This is a black and white question with absolutely crystal clear context.

It can't be lying by omission because there are no grey-area details to admit. He either did have contact before or after election day with Russian government contacts regarding the 2016 election, or he didn't.

They are claiming he lied under oath because he had ANY contact with Russia. Yet that clearly isn't the intention or context of the question.

[shocka khan]

Here is the FULL question with CONTEXT (which is conveniently ignored by the leftist media and all the articles you have been reading):

"22. The intelligence community has concluded that Russia intervened in the 2016 election in an effort to help elect Donald Trump. The report is available at https://www.dni.gov/files/ documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf. Russian interference in our elections is larger than any candidate or political party. This is about protecting our democracy.

...

e. 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?"

This is a black and white question with absolutely crystal clear context.

It can't be lying by omission because there are no grey-area details to admit. He either did have contact before or after election day with Russian government contacts regarding the 2016 election, or he didn't.

They are claiming he lied under oath because he had ANY contact with Russia. Yet that clearly isn't the intention or context of the question.

Not lying but fraud by omission. This fact case is not a civil matter, but for your reference, here's a definition (ref: http://www.americanbar.org/content/d...checkdam.pdf):
I. Elements of a Fraud by Omission Claim
Briefly stated, fraud by omission is common law fraud based on failing to
disclose a material fact that a party has a duty to disclose.2 The elements of a
fraud by omission claim vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In Texas, for
example, the elements are:
(1) the defendant concealed or failed to disclose a material fact within its knowledge
to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant had a duty to disclose that fact; (3) the defendant
knew the plaintiff was ignorant of the fact and the plaintiff did not have an
equal opportunity to discover the truth; (4) the defendant intended to induce the
plaintiff to take some action by concealing or failing to disclose the fact; (5) the
plaintiff relied on the defendant’s nondisclosure; and (6) the plaintiff was injured
as a result of acting without that knowledge.


Tell me which one of the 6 elements you would not consider to be relevant. Again, note the fact case we are discussing here is civil, not criminal.

[shocka khan]

I stand by my statement, go read the transcript of the question from Franken. He answered the question he was asked honestly. He answered the written question by Leahy honestly.

Fraud by omission? What was he hiding? It's a common practice for the committee members to meet with foreign ambassadors. I see no evidence that he was trying to hide the Russian ambassador meetings.

What did he discuss with the Russian ambassador? Neither you know nor do I. Perhaps we could 'trust' the Russian ambassador, who many consider to be a spy, to give us the truth? How do you 'see' there is no evidence? I'd like for you to explain that one.

Note this is after at least 3 other people associated with Trump's campaign had contact with the Russians and Trump's ex-campaign advisor, Paul Manifort, is being investigated by the FBI for his dealings with Russian officials.

If this were a random one-off thing, I might think you have more credibility. But given the number of people associated with the Trump campaign who have talked to the Russians, not so much.

At the end of the day, this might be more like some of the Clinton escapades we've watched over the years. It could well be a partisan witch-hunt. But before I make that conclusion, I would like to see someone independent of our Attorney General review all these matters.

[Kung Wu]

Not lying but fraud by omission.

Splitting hairs. "Fraud" necessarily includes an intentional lie (which can be a false representation or intentionally deceptive action). One who has committed fraud has lied.

Tell me which one of the 6 elements you would not consider to be relevant. Again, note the fact case we are discussing here is civil, not criminal.

The burden of the claim is on YOU to prove he intentionally lied (and thereby committed some form of fraud -- in this case one of omission) when answering this question:

"22. The intelligence community has concluded that Russia intervened in the 2016 election in an effort to help elect Donald Trump. ... Russian interference in our elections is larger than any candidate or political party.
...
e. ... 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?"

But whatever ...

(1) What MATERIAL fact about the 2016 election did he not disclose? Meetings with a Russian ambassador is not material, if those discussions had nothing to do with the 2016 election (the context of the question). There is no intention to mislead. The given answer is full, robust, sincere, and complete.

(2) Since there is no additional material fact to disclose, there can be no duty to disclose it.

(3) There is no material fact for the plaintiff to be ignorant of.

(4) There is no material fact to disclose, therefore there is no intended action induced.

(5) There is no nondisclosure.

(6) There is no injury, because there is no missing knowledge.

Edit: Now if someone comes forth with some evidence that he DID have contact with Russians _regarding the 2016 election_, then he can be nailed to a cross. But there isn't a shred of evidence to assert that claim.

[shocka khan]

Splitting hairs. "Fraud" necessarily includes an intentional lie (which can be a false representation or intentionally deceptive action). One who has committed fraud has lied.



The burden of the claim is on YOU to prove he intentionally lied (and thereby committed some form of fraud -- in this case one of omission) when answering this question:

"22. The intelligence community has concluded that Russia intervened in the 2016 election in an effort to help elect Donald Trump. ... Russian interference in our elections is larger than any candidate or political party.
...
e. ... 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?"

But whatever ...

(1) What MATERIAL fact about the 2016 election did he not disclose? Meetings with a Russian ambassador is not material, if those discussions had nothing to do with the 2016 election (the context of the question). There is no intention to mislead. The given answer is full, robust, sincere, and complete.

(2) Since there is no additional material fact to disclose, there can be no duty to disclose it.

(3) There is no material fact for the plaintiff to be ignorant of.

(4) There is no material fact to disclose, therefore there is no intended action induced.

(5) There is no nondisclosure.

(6) There is no injury, because there is no missing knowledge.

Edit: Now if someone comes forth with some evidence that he DID have contact with Russians _regarding the 2016 election_, then he can be nailed to a cross. But there isn't a shred of evidence to assert that claim.

Then why did he recuse himself?

[ShockingButTrue]

• 
• Fake meme?

[SB Shock]

Again, I've said lets investigate both sides. They both should have nothing to hide

That easy to say, but it to late for most of those things to be investigated (except for maybe the Clinton foundation). I do expect the republican to investigate any allegations of the Trump administration. I mean there is not that much love for Trump from the leaders in congress.

[Kung Wu]

Then why did he recuse himself?

For the same reason a judge would recuse themselves of participating in adjudicating a lawsuit concerning a company that they have ownership of. That doesn't mean the judge or company is corrupt, it just means they have a conflict of interest.

Sessions oversees the FBI and the Justice Department. There would be a conflict of interest if he were to take part in an investigation on a campaign that he participated in, no?

That's certainly clear and obvious, no?