Majority of Americans want Attorney General Sessions to resign for lying under oath

[KingOrfeo]

Here:

According to a majority of voters polled in a Quinnipiac University survey released Wednesday, Sessions lied under oath during his confirmation hearing about his contact with the Russians while serving as an emissary for the Trump campaign and should resign. Reports emerged earlier this year that top aides and allies to Trump’s 2016 campaign were in constant contact with senior Russian intelligence officials before election day.

Unsurprisingly, that number breaks mostly along partisan lines. More than eight in 10 Democrats said the attorney general should resign, while only 11 percent of Republicans said Sessions should step down. Additionally, 43 percent of American voters already had an unfavorable opinion of Sessions’ job performance. The poll of 1,123 American voters took place from March 2 to March 6, and has a margin-of-error of +/- 2.7 percent.

Pollsters also found more than half of those surveyed believe Sessions lied about speaking with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak at his January hearing. According to the poll, 52 percent of voters believe Sessions committed perjury when he said he “did not have communications with the Russians” during his Senate confirmation hearings.

 

[Conager]

I am shocked to learn that the percentage of Hillary voters is opposed to a highly competant, experianced prosecuter in that role.

Maybe Trump should simply appease the people that did not vote for him by firing Sessions and reinstalling the above reproach Loretta Lynch, or maybe the totally barely obstructed congress Eric Holder for throwback AG day?

 

[KingOrfeo]

I am shocked to learn that the percentage of Hillary voters is opposed to a highly competant, experianced prosecuter in that role.

They're not, they're opposed to a perjurious racist Trump-Putin-slave, who might also be a highly competent, experienced prosecutor but that don't help none here, in that role.

 

[Conager]

They're not, they're opposed to a perjurious racist Trump-Piutin-slave, who might also be a highly competent, experienced prosecutor but that don't help none here, in that role.

To be fair, all Republicans are racists, unable to think for themselves, only able to do the bidding of their evil overlords.

What if the replacenent, as is likely, is just as bad as Slate tells you this one is?

 

[KingOrfeo]

What if the replacenent, as is likely, is just as bad as Slate tells you this one is?

Then any legal or political objections to the replacement will be addressed as they arise, which shouldn't take long.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Ladbrokes is offering 2-1 odds Trump won't last the year.

 

[Rightguide]

Here:

Salon?? Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...

 

[phrodeau]

Salon?? Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...

Take your pick: https://news.google.com/news/story?...ved=0ahUKEwiKuND3wMjSAhURyGMKHU77BQQQqgIITzAH

 

[Phelia]

Me, reading this post:

I am shocked to learn that the percentage of Hillary voters is opposed to a highly competant

*competent

http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/sb3hn4.gif

experianced

*experienced

https://media.giphy.com/media/jQmVFypWInKCc/giphy.gif

prosecuter

*prosecutor

https://i0.wp.com/media2.giphy.com/media/3rgXBxIdlkiBg0b7VK/giphy.gif

 

[Rightguide]

Take your pick: https://news.google.com/news/story?...ved=0ahUKEwiKuND3wMjSAhURyGMKHU77BQQQqgIITzAH

I'll bet a majority of that "majority" can't define perjury. Where's the methodology for the poll?

 

[Parminderjeet]

Me, reading this post:



*competent

http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/sb3hn4.gif



*experienced

https://media.giphy.com/media/jQmVFypWInKCc/giphy.gif



*prosecutor

https://i0.wp.com/media2.giphy.com/media/3rgXBxIdlkiBg0b7VK/giphy.gif

Perhaps he really is hashtag...

 

[Conager]

Me, reading this post:



*competent

http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/sb3hn4.gif



*experienced

https://media.giphy.com/media/jQmVFypWInKCc/giphy.gif



*prosecutor

https://i0.wp.com/media2.giphy.com/media/3rgXBxIdlkiBg0b7VK/giphy.gif

UOTE=Phelia;84260010]Me, reading this post:



*competent

http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/sb3hn4.gif



*experienced

https://media.giphy.com/media/jQmVFypWInKCc/giphy.gif



*prosecutor

I am pleased to provide you this small victory in a time when those of your persuasion have so very little to crow about.

 

[renard_ruse]

Ok, Rory. I'm sure he'll immediately tender his resignation now. Thanks for posting.

What do you think of those polls that show that 80% of Americans oppose Sanctuary cities? Those are pretty interesting polls.

 

[phrodeau]

I'll bet a majority of that "majority" can't define perjury. Where's the methodology for the poll?

I'll bet that a good majority of that public knows what it means to bear false witness.

 

[Conager]

I'll bet a majority of that "majority" can't define perjury. Where's the methodology for the poll?

I would wager that Phelia is aware of the specific reasons that this poutrage is nothing close to perjury. Much farther from the requisite standard than either Climton, or Clapper, or Holder for that matter. She added no commentary on that.

I would further submit she read the first sentence of the quoted passage in the OP and saw the obvious slight of hand in the wordsmithing designed to cause the reader to conflate his role as "emissary" for the Trump campaign with his unrelated comtact(s?) with the Russian ambassador. Again she fails to point out that that assumes facts that are not in evidence, and extremely relevant because it goes to the meaning of what was actually asked, as obviously understood at the time, as opposed to what the anti-Trumpers are pretending was being asked taking a litteralist view of the line of questioning. The person doing the answering is the person that gets to discern what is being asked of them. If there is confusion, it is always the fault of the person posing the question for either not being sufficiently clear or neglecting to follow up with revealatory questions.

She has obviously read plenty of Oreo's balderdash and chooses to remain silent about his shockingly bad reading of the law on various issues. I assume this is because, though highly incompetent, he sits at the right table in the courtroom of public opinion. Just one example would be his use of pre-Hellar talkimg points on no less than three second amendmemt bait threads in the same day. You don't get to support the tortured logic that was Roe v Wade, and dissmissive of the plain language reading of Heller.

 

[Conager]

I'll bet that a good majority of that public knows what it means to bear false witness.

Interestingly bad attempt to move the goal posts. Both on the witness stand, and in the confessional, both "sins" require clear intent to deceive.

I guess I'm not surprised that you are in the majority of the majority that does not understand what perjury is and is not.

 

[RobDownSouth]

It's fun to watch Queerbait attempt to redefine perjury.

I'm impressed he managed to spell the word correctly.

 

[phrodeau]

Interestingly bad attempt to move the goal posts. Both on the witness stand, and in the confessional, both "sins" require clear intent to deceive.

I guess I'm not surprised that you are in the majority of the majority that does not understand what perjury is and is not.

Here is the poll. The pertinent questions are #60 to 62. https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2437

The issue is whether people believe that Sessions lied under oath. The word "perjury" is nowhere in the poll.

Who's moving goalposts now?

 

[Conager]

Here is the poll. The pertinent questions are #60 to 62. https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2437

The issue is whether people believe that Sessions lied under oath. The word "perjury" is nowhere in the poll.

Who's moving goalposts now?

You know this is another one of those times then I convinced that you and Sergeant Spider-Man are actually the same person.

What is the legal term for "lying under oath?"

One cannot lie by mistake or misunderstanding. It requires willful intent, as I explained.

Senator Sessions has been an actual practicing attorney and prosecutOr. He knows and takes seriously the responsibility to give truthful testimony. As did Bill Clinton. Clinton attempted and failed to walk between the raindrops and give a particular impression without actually having to perjure himself. That is permissible. Sleazy, but permissable. He ducked and answered artfully in and effort to save his hide. It did not work. A better lawyer than Clinton boxed him in and Clinton was left with no choice but to either commit actual perjury or come clean.

None of that happened with the idiot Franken questioning an actual lawyer. Session didn't have to lie and did not lie because Franken was simply trying to plant innuendo by implying that Sessions may have or should been aware of some sort of contact between Trump staffers and some unnamed Russian operative(s). It was a bullshit line of questioning not having anything to do with whether Session as would be common knowlege, meets with the actual Russian Ambassador. Pretending that that was somehow in the scope of the question intended, much less actually asked is beyond silly. There was no gotcha moment that Session was trying to avoid or would have needed to. Cling to your alternate reality, if you must.

There would be no point in denying meetings on his public schedule. No one besides you, BettyPoop, and Oreo believes Sessions met with the Russian AMBASSADOR to plot campaign strategy of undermining Clinton. That was not being intimated and it certainly was not asked, directly or obliquely.

Similarly, when Trump is asked about his dealings with Russians and says he hasn't had any in x number of years he is not talking about negotating with a Rusdian cabbie on the way to the MissWorld pageant. He's talking about it in-depth complex complicated business dealings. He doesn't mean he didn't speak to a solitary Russian in x years.

I'd like you to point out where in your entire history you've ever held any Democrat to this ridiculous standard of verity.

 

[Conager]

You know who did use the actual legal term "P E R J U R Y" in association with this non-event? The non-lawyer who was ineptly asking the questions in question. That's right, comedian an member of the idiocracy, Al Franken. Yes, that Al Franken, serving US Senator installed by hanging chads and actual voter fraud by a handful of votes.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/07/politics/al-franken-jeff-sessions-perjury/index.html

 

[RobDownSouth]

Queerbait is still spinning it. SAD

#BellyRubFromAJ

 

[Rightguide]

I would wager that Phelia is aware of the specific reasons that this poutrage is nothing close to perjury. Much farther from the requisite standard than either Climton, or Clapper, or Holder for that matter. She added no commentary on that.

I would further submit she read the first sentence of the quoted passage in the OP and saw the obvious slight of hand in the wordsmithing designed to cause the reader to conflate his role as "emissary" for the Trump campaign with his unrelated comtact(s?) with the Russian ambassador. Again she fails to point out that that assumes facts that are not in evidence, and extremely relevant because it goes to the meaning of what was actually asked, as obviously understood at the time, as opposed to what the anti-Trumpers are pretending was being asked taking a litteralist view of the line of questioning. The person doing the answering is the person that gets to discern what is being asked of them. If there is confusion, it is always the fault of the person posing the question for either not being sufficiently clear or neglecting to follow up with revealatory questions.

She has obviously read plenty of Oreo's balderdash and chooses to remain silent about his shockingly bad reading of the law on various issues. I assume this is because, though highly incompetent, he sits at the right table in the courtroom of public opinion. Just one example would be his use of pre-Hellar talkimg points on no less than three second amendmemt bait threads in the same day. You don't get to support the tortured logic that was Roe v Wade, and dissmissive of the plain language reading of Heller.

One good reason to never take this shit seriously. Just make your point without regard for fallout and have fun doing it.

 

[Rightguide]

I'll bet that a good majority of that public knows what it means to bear false witness.

"Bearing false witness" isn't the standard used to define perjury in the Federal Criminal Resource Manual. I posted the elements of perjury the other day to educate another overly enthusiastic member named Sean. Look it up.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

.....

 

[Rightguide]

.....

Was found in contempt of Congress, never prosecuted for it or asked to resign by Democrat hypocrites.