Is Att'y Gen. Jeff Sessions About to Commit Perjury?

[DonViejo]

Is Att’y Gen. Jeff Sessions About to Commit Perjury?

By Ryan Goodman
Monday, June 12, 2017 at 8:05 AM

Following James Comey’s hearing on Capitol Hill, the Department of Justice issued a statement which flatly contradicts something that Comey said in his testimony. It appears that Comey and Jeff Sessions have directly opposing positions on how the Attorney General responded when Comey says he implored Sessions to prevent the president from directly communicating with him as FBI director. It is increasingly common these days for the administration to include a falsehood in an official statement. Repeating that falsehood under oath before Congress is an entirely different matter. It’s a federal crime. And these proceedings have a special counsel looking over them.

What to watch for next: On Tuesday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions will appear before the Senate Intelligence Committee. If he repeats a claim that is contained in the Department of Justice’s “Statement on Testimony of Former FBI Director James Comey,” it is very likely that Sessions will commit perjury or a felony false statement or misrepresentation (which does not require being under oath).

Whether in open or closed session, all it may take is a lawmaker essentially asking the Attorney General whether he stands by the statement released by the Justice Department with respect to a significant interaction between Comey and Sessions. (I’d also recommend he be asked how sure he is of his own recollection.) The question revolves around what Comey told Sessions on the need to prevent direct communications from the President and how Sessions responded.

The Valentine’s Day meeting
On February 14, following an intelligence briefing in the Oval Office, the President asked everyone in the room, including the Attorney General, to leave so that the he could meet alone with Comey. It was then that Trump spoke to Comey about Michael Flynn. None of those facts are in dispute.

What Comey told Sessions
On the following day, February 15, Comey says that he implored Sessions to prevent the President from ever again having bilateral communications with the FBI director. In his written prepared testimony, Comey states:

more
https://www.justsecurity.org/42012/atty-gen-jeff-sessions-commit-perjury/

[Javaman]

1. he'll lie and say that he "misremembered".

slithering his way through this testimony.

And even if he outright lies and doesn't care, what, if anything will the senate do?

the repukes are all lined up to have their bellies rubbed by the orange menace and is room full of dopes.

[WinkyDink]

2. Doesn't the writer mean to include.... "AGAIN?!" ?

[Kleveland]

3. Purgury is a given

Enforcement of the law regarding penalties for such actions, not so much.

We do know where we are, right?

It would be "the most beautiful piece of chocolate cake..." if the committee already had hard evidence before them that would make the lies within his statements obvious and incriminating.

That is often the tactic of skillful lawyers.

We can be sure that he will not self incriminate intentionally.

It will be another goat rodeo, I am sure.

[Orrex]

4. Perjury is so 2016. And so Democrat-only.

[MedusaX]

5. Unfortunately, both Comey & J-bo Elfkin could be telling the truth...it would make sense that the

Interaction/ conversation went like this:

Comey:
We need to make sure that FBI /DoJ and WH are following the established communications protocol.


Sessions:
Yes. We to be careful about following appropriate policies.


Comey:
You & I both know that the established protocol strictly prohibits direct communication between POTUS and DirFBI regarding current investigative matters.

Yet when he asked everyone to leave except for me....
you allowed that to happen.
It is inappropriate and should never happen again.

Please make sure that POTUS/ WH are aware of the communication protocols and the importance of following them.

Sessions: {no reply}

[SDJay]

6. Probably.

He's already done it at least once with no consequences. Why wouldn't he do it again?