Page 8 - Written Question News Today

Testimony was he was being too lawyerly. that raises suspicions for prosecutors who are always looking to see if anybody has exposure so he needs to be totally forthcoming. the problem is at some point hell have to get his own lawyer, it will probably be one of these pit bull washington law firms who are looking to keep his butt out of jail, quite frankly. so there will be a weird tension between his responsibilities as the nations chief law enforcement officer but hes leading in the department ...

Laid out what were really headlines. >> mm-hmm. >> the devil is in the details, and the question is where do you get $1 trillion from? and those details werent there. now, to be honest, you dont expect details in that kind of speech, and ive been around long enough to understand that. but notice what john just did. he didnt even touch the jeff sessions thing, and this is what they do. they sit there and talk about all the good things, but then everybody and their grandmother knows they screwed u...

Over, jobs, a growing economy, economic prosperity makes everybody happy, and if is the great equalizer thats really what he needs to be focusing on is bringing jobs back to the united states, getting people back to work, keeping them working, raising wages, creating opportunity, expanding the economy for everybody. if he can do that, hes going to get reelected in 2020 by a bigger margin than you can imagine. thats what hes trying to work on. >> joe? >> this other stuff is a distraction. thats w...

Doubt. >> yeah. >> youre choking, choking on words. >> this thing is not going to go away, though until -- >> you realize at one of those meetings when he went to the convention that he used campaign funds to go to the convention. he was acting as an adviser and a surrogate on behalf of the trump campaign at the convention when he met with the russian ambassador. yet that meeting was a meeting as a senator and not as a trump adviser? >> don -- >> also keep in mind there is -- any th they asked a...

Response to al franken in that meeting. and, look, he lawyered up. it was a very narrow answer to a very narrow question. >> so if he answered the question truthfully, why recuse himself? >> well, i think hes recusing himself now because he was part of the campaign. he was a surrogate in the campaign. so if youre investigating the campaign and you were part of it, i dont think that makes any sense. i think that jeff sessions should have recused himself even if this hadnt come up. it didnt make a...

Into moscow, but he cant even remember what an ambassador said in reference to a very serious issue? >> john, how do you respond to that? >> well, joe and don, jeff sessions, attorney general jeff sessions, gave a very narrow answer to a very narrow question that technically if you analyze it through lawyers eyes, it was a technically correct question. but he was not forthcoming with the entire truth, and i think he said that by saying, look, i need to go back and correct the record because thre...

All the time. y yes, he would have been more clear. there is an admission that this was an easy way for them to recuse themselves. also jeff sessions during his confirmation hearing said hed recuse himself from anything deal with the clintons because he was a member of the campaign. when he describes himself as a surrogate, its much more than that. jeff sessions was an early endorser of this president, a key adviser to him. i think he underestimates his own influence in the campaign by just call...

Remember, just not even a year ago the same was required of loretta lynch for the hint of pro impropriety for her tarmac conversation with president clinton. there was not a fully vetted investigation or a hint of impropriety. that is enough for people to raise their eyebrows and wonder whether the justice department is being led by somebody who can be objective and who can be critical of the administration in a way that they are required to be if they need to be and also the fox is not guarding...

Terms. wasnt even thinking of the meeting he had had in his office with the russian ambassador. and that, therefore, he was not trying to mislead the committee. the definition of perjury is a statement under oath made when the person uttering it knows it to be wrong, knows it to be false or misleading. necessity say thats just not the case here. in a written question from senator patrick leahy, a more tightly focused question, saying, have you, meaning senator sessions, have you had any contact ...

Senator al franken in which he said he didnt meet with russians. there was a written question senator leahy sent to him that was this. ill put it up on the screen. question, several of the president-elects 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? sessions reply in one word, no. so the question is, and you studied this. you are a legal annualyst....