Everybody knows Jeff Sessions has lied to Congress on too many occasions to count over the past 14 months.
As a general rule, if Sessions is testifying, he’s either i) lying, or ii) in the process of explaining why he “cannot recall.” This is common knowledge to the point of being a standing joke, and I guess that’s part of what’s so goddamn frustrating for lawmakers and for the American public: the effort on the part of this administration to obfuscate under duress quite clearly suggests they all know that “mistakes” were made, and if those “mistakes” were just that (i.e. innocent “mistakes”) then it’s not clear why everyone isn’t being more forthcoming.
I mean sure, you might be embarrassed and/or scared to admit that in hindsight, you might have done something that could conceivably be construed as collusion-ish, but knowing that collusion is almost impossible to prove and also knowing that if you did something which was bad, you didn’t necessarily do it with malice, you’d think that after a year you’d just say something like: “Look, here’s the whole story, from start to finish, clearly I didn’t mean to do anything wrong, so let’s work through this shit once and for all.”
But you never get that from this administration. You get these indignant denials and desperate efforts to deflect blame and absurd counter-investigations and smoke screens and then in Jeff Sessions’ case, you get the Keebler elf perjuring himself over, and over, and over again. So if you’re the American public, you are completely justified to think something like this: “Hey, what the fuck? Why do these people seem so guilty?”
Well you might recall (or actually, if you’re the Attorney General, you might “not recall”) that Jeff Sessions has found himself all twisted in knots over the whole George Papadopoulos fiasco. That would be the George Papadopoulos who ended up getting flipped by Mueller and who was featured in the now infamous picture of a “national security meeting” that then candidate Trump plastered all over social media. If you need a Papadopoulos refresher course, “there’s a Heisenberg archive for that.”
The backstory here is characteristically absurd and convoluted, but here’s an excerpt from a post we did in November when the Papadopoulos/Sessions connection started to get scrutinized:
Earlier today, we noted that Attorney General and racist lawn gnome, Jeff Sessions, has come under heightened scrutiny this week. His presence at a meeting attended by former Trump adviser turned-Mueller cooperating witness George Papadopoulos seems to indicate that we still have not gotten the full story about what Sessions knew and when.
Sessions has of course been questioned repeatedly this year about apparent inconsistencies in his account. The Attorney General is in the habit of obfuscating when asked direct questions and he also seems to suffer from bouts of selective amnesia with regard to anything having to do with Russia and the Trump campaign. Unfortunately for Sessions, Trump tweeted this picture in March of 2016:
So there’s Jeff and there’s Trump and there’s Papadopoulos. The thing about images posted to the President’s official, verified social media accounts is that it’s hard to refute them later should expediency require it.
Apparently, Sessions in fact threw cold water on a proposal by Papadopoulos that Trump meet with Putin. That’s a problem because back in June, at a Senate intelligence committee hearing, Sessions testified that he didn’t know about any conversations between “anyone connected to the Trump campaign” and Russians. In other words, he lied.
Well now, according to multiple sources who spoke to Reuters, Sessions did not in fact throw cold water on the idea that the Trump campaign reach out to Russia. To wit, from an exclusive out on Sunday:
Sessions testified before Congress in November 2017 that he “pushed back” against the proposal made by former campaign adviser George Papadopoulos at a March 31, 2016 campaign meeting. Then a senator from Alabama, Sessions chaired the meeting as head of the Trump campaign’s foreign policy team.
“Yes, I pushed back,” Sessions told the House Judiciary Committee on Nov. 14, when asked whether he shut down Papadopoulos’ proposed outreach to Russia. Sessions has since also been interviewed by Mueller.
Three people who attended the March campaign meeting told Reuters they gave their version of events to FBI agents or congressional investigators probing Russian interference in the 2016 election. Although the accounts they provided to Reuters differed in certain respects, all threes, who declined to be identified, said Sessions had expressed no objections to Papadopoulos’ idea.
So Sessions lied about lying. And that’s not surprising because that’s what typically happens when you tell big lies about things that involve a ton of other people. Eventually, it becomes impossible to keep your story straight because your story was a lie in the first place. And Heisenberg is a guy who speaks from experience on that.
The longer-term problem for Sessions here is obviously that he’s likely to find himself ensnared by Mueller, but in the near-term, this is just one more story that makes him seem like a loose end. And we all know what happens to Trump’s loose ends.
What’s going to be supremely ironic is that Sessions is going to end up getting fired not long after he fired someone else (McCabe) in order to save his own ass.
And remember, Trump is already predisposed to wanting “Mr. Magoo” gone. Additionally, you’re reminded that Mueller has reportedly asked a lot of questions about whether and to what extent Trump tried to bully Sessions into resigning. So this is another one of those cases where the President is going to have to be really careful about whose shoes he pisses on because it seems entirely possible that if he unceremoniously ousts Magoo, the Attorney General may try to cut some kind of deal.
Sessions has already spoken to Mueller’s team once.
Accepting every criticism, no matter how absurd, of AG Sessions as true, correct and complete he still would rank far above his immediate predecessor of Fast and Furious shame, etc.
he’s a racist dwarf.
that’s entirely “true, correct, and complete.”
There may be ‘some’ doubt that Mueller is in a posiiton to indict Sessions for various crimes relating to false testimony. It’s clear Sessions lied, it’s not so clear that his lies were prejurious.
But assume he committed perjury, the question is, what does Mueller do with those crimes. Does he simply see what information he can extract from Sessions on the Obstruction/Comey case or any other related crime? Or, does Mueller advantage himself by using Sessions’ position as AG (via Rosenstein* as the intermediary) with his attendant AG’s powers to help provide Mueller with cover and support in ways that Trump would never come to know about.
* https://www.axios.com/scoop-jeff-sessions-dines-with-rod-rosenstein-1519865511-4afe726b-6642-4ca5-8ebf-e9f0600df79b.html
If you think that Mueller is not that tough, cut-throat or Machiavellian, then I recommend you read this Vanity Fair** story on what he did to take down the boss of the powerful Gambino crime family in New York City, John “Teflon Don” Gotti.
** https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/12/how-scared-should-trump-be-of-mueller-ask-john-gotti-or-sammy-the-bull
I forgot about the 83rd AG Loretta E. Lynch, who also was an embarrassment not just to the legal profession but also to humanity.
what do you find so offensive about Lynch? Am I missing something here?? So, you think that the facts about Sessions are absurd? Did I read that first sentence right? Please, tell us more.
Geez m.mc are you just mean, uninformed or just an assh*le. Your opinion is just like mine, an opinion but facts are real things provable in many ways, you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. Open your eyes my friend there is a big beautiful fact filled world out there.
Think about M. Mc’s point. He certianly has a point of vew. That is, M. Mc is comparing his “opinion” of Republican appointed AGs to those AGs appointed by democrats.
Shall we begin with the one that immeditely comes to mind as the most famous in the present context? Of course, Republican John Mitchell, who on February 21, 1975, was found guilty of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury and sentenced to two and a half to eight years in prison for his role in the Watergate break-in and cover-up, which he dubbed the “White House horrors.” As a result of the conviction, Mitchell was disbarred from the practice of law in New York.
Republican, Richard Kleindienst, who in 1974, pleaded guilty to failing to testify fully to the Senate in a pre-Watergate investigation, involving alleged favoritism shown to International Telephone & Telegraph Corp, during his testimony in his Senate confirmation hearings.
Republican, Robert Bork, who became Acting Attorney General after his superiors in the Justice Department resigned rather than fire Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, who was investigating the Watergate scandal. Bork fired Cox and served as Acting Attorney General under Richard Nixon until January 1974.
Republican, Edwin Meese, the subject of two special prosecutor’s investigations relating Bechtel scandal and the Wedtech scandal, wherein the former he was found to have engaged in ethical lapses – especially regarding bribes to Israel not to attack an Iraqi oil pipeline that benefited associates of the Attorney General. and the later of which was an investigation into actions Meese took that benefited him and his longtime friend and former lawyer, E. Robert Wallach. The special prosecutor looked into Meese’s involvement in negotiations involving the company Wedtech. McKay never prosecuted or sought indictment of Meese, but in his official report, which is still confidential, he was highly critical of Meese’s ethics and urged further investigation of Meese’s role in that scandal and others such as Meese’s efforts to help Bechtel Corporation. Meese described it as a “full vindication.” While Meese was never convicted of any wrongdoing, he resigned in 1988 when the independent counsel delivered the report on Wedtech. Prior to his departure, several top Justice Department officials resigned in protest of what they and others viewed as improper acts by the Attorney General. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Meese
Republican, Alberto Gonzales. Need I write another word? For those with no memory or with a desire not to remember this Republican specialty item, go here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Gonzales#Controversies
With the categories listed herein, I looked for AGs appointed by democrats that came anywhere close to the categories listed and compared them to this the above list of Republican stars and I must confess that the “facts” don’t support anything comparable. Once again, in the field of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, perjury, corruption, criminal wrongdoing, self-interest, unethical conduct, self-dealing, false testimony, cover-ups, bribery and the like, I found it impossible to find a group more proficient at these and related categories of behavior. They are the winners!
And now comes the Republican King of the executive branch: Mr. Destructo, teaching them all by way of example just how to surpass their wildest dreams of what they might get away with if they just act like criminals in front of the entire world.
…hey Vito, that Donnie Dennison is sure a piece, ain’t he?
Marty, I especially liked the part of your link to Gonzales when Jeff Sessions was annoyed when Gonzales “could not recall” — maybe that is where he learned that phrase!
Impressive (not in a good way) list of questionable to criminal acts by a big list of Repubs. So M.Mc will believe anything any Repub says — too much FOX maybe? Blind to Crime? Stupid? I hope he gets to visit assface in prison one day.
Good job! 🙂
Heisenberg does indeed speak with expertise on this matter: http://www.vulture.com/2013/09/breaking-bad-walter-white-five-types-of-lies.html