Much hay is being made over the transcript of Sessions's answer to Al Franken in testimony, in which Sessions, in response to a question about meeting with Kislyak even as Russian cyber-mischief was becoming public knowledge, says his conversation with the ambassador was not in his capacity as a surrogate.
Andrew McCarthy clarifies the dynamic involved in the exchange:
It is fair enough for critics to maintain that Sessions should have been clearer. But if we consider this matter not as a political dispute but a potential perjury prosecution, then the burden was on Franken, not Sessions, to be clearer. The witness’s obligation, as a matter of perjury law, is to refrain from willfully providing testimony that is both false and intended to deceive the tribunal. The burden is on the questioner to remove all doubt or ambiguity by asking exacting follow-up questions.
You may be thinking: Sessions should have added, “When I said I had ‘no communications,’ I meant ‘no communications in the role of a Trump surrogate discussing campaign business’; I did not mean that I’ve never spoken to a Russian official.” It’s only natural to see it that way. But that is not how it works if we are considering a charge of perjury. In those circumstances, it was up to Franken to clarify matters, by asking a follow-up along the lines of, “To be clear, I am asking you whether you’ve had any contact whatsoever with Russian officials during the campaign, whether as a Trump surrogate, in your capacity as a U.S. senator, or under any other circumstances.”
So, was Sessions’s testimony inaccurate? Sure, especially taken out of context. But was it perjurious? Not even close. The context, established by Franken’s questioning, elucidates that when Sessions denied communications with Russians, he was denying that he had spoken with Russian officials as a Trump surrogate, particularly in any relation to the misconduct described in the dossier.
It seems that Yemen raid did indeed provide us with much vital knowledge of how the jihadists there - arguably the world's most dangerous - operate:
Well, well, well… what do we have here? CNN is reporting that the controversial raid in Yemen last month did infact yield leads on Al Qaeda operatives. The raid which has received significant media attention as Donald Trump’s detractors have questioned the operation, which resulted in the death of Ryan Owens, a Navy SEAL.
It’s been reported that laptops, hard drives and other materials were seized during the operation. However Democrats and their allies in the Media have called into question the necessity and success of the raid. President Trump honored Ryan Owens’ widow during the joint sessions address to Congress on Tuesday.Rick Perry is confirmed as Energy Secretary.
Tensions increase between Malaysia and North Korea in the wake of Kim Jong Nam's assassination by VX.
Debra Heine at PJ Media lists the most disgusting and / or ridiculous Freedom-Hater reactions to DJT's SOTU address. There its content, including screenshots of tweets, underneath each one, but here are the reactions themselves:
1. A former Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama volunteer said SEAL widow Carryn Owens looked like "an idiot"
2. Failed novelist Ben Rhodes chided President Trump for using the term "radical Islamic terrorism"
3. Sore loser Sally Kohn issued a "reminder" about the irrelevant popular vote
4. Keith Olbermanm had a crazed, unhinged, Godwin's law-smashing rant
5. Democrat congresswomen wore white "in a show of unity" in honor of women’s suffrage
6. "Anti-Racism Strategist" Tariq Nasheed insulted CNN's Van Jones with a racist tweet because Jones said something complimentary about President Trump
7. On MSNBC's Hardball, Bill Maher slammed the president for honoring Carryn Owens, the widow of fallen Navy SEAL Ryan OwensThe Navy has a growing problem with female pregnant deployed sailors needing to be reassigned to shore duty.