General Discussion

hlthe2b

(102,278 posts) Thu Apr 18, 2019, 11:34 AM Apr 2019

UPDATE: The matter of Jeff Sessions (presumedly perjury to congress): They CLEARED HIM

PAGE 197 of the actual document (not page 197 of the adobe acrobat file)... I previously posted that it was redacted due to using a go-to function of Acrobat which did not take me to the correct page 197 of the actual document.

7 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

UPDATE: The matter of Jeff Sessions (presumedly perjury to congress): They CLEARED HIM (Original Post) hlthe2b Apr 2019 OP

He must be innocent? PeeJ52 Apr 2019 #1

That doesn't relate to Jeff Sessions Dread Pirate Roberts Apr 2019 #2

No.. Page 197 on pdf acrobat numbering is 189 on the actual document. Sessions is on 197 of doc hlthe2b Apr 2019 #4

Not really "cleared" Dread Pirate Roberts Apr 2019 #5

Yes.. I am not trying to nitpick the legalese, which is not helpful right now. He wasn't charged. hlthe2b Apr 2019 #6

Why would Sessions have recused??? He knew what was going on and he was NOT going to asiliveandbreathe Apr 2019 #3

That's too bad lunamagica Apr 2019 #7

PeeJ52

(1,588 posts)

1. He must be innocent?

Reply to hlthe2b (Original post)

Thu Apr 18, 2019, 11:38 AM

Apr 2019

Dread Pirate Roberts

(1,896 posts)

2. That doesn't relate to Jeff Sessions

Reply to hlthe2b (Original post)

Thu Apr 18, 2019, 11:39 AM

Apr 2019

It relates to a name that has been redacted at the top of the section. v. HOM (harm to ongoing matter) Sessions is addressed by the next section. vi.

hlthe2b

(102,278 posts)

4. No.. Page 197 on pdf acrobat numbering is 189 on the actual document. Sessions is on 197 of doc

Reply to Dread Pirate Roberts (Reply #2)

Thu Apr 18, 2019, 11:41 AM

Apr 2019

They actually CLEARED him

Dread Pirate Roberts

(1,896 posts)

5. Not really "cleared"

Reply to hlthe2b (Reply #4)

Thu Apr 18, 2019, 11:50 AM

Apr 2019

They just concluded they couldn't prove he intentionally lied beyond a reasonable doubt. They detailed some pretty shady statements by him.

hlthe2b

(102,278 posts)

6. Yes.. I am not trying to nitpick the legalese, which is not helpful right now. He wasn't charged.

Reply to Dread Pirate Roberts (Reply #5)

Thu Apr 18, 2019, 11:52 AM

Apr 2019

asiliveandbreathe

(8,203 posts)

3. Why would Sessions have recused??? He knew what was going on and he was NOT going to

Reply to hlthe2b (Original post)

Thu Apr 18, 2019, 11:40 AM

Apr 2019

allow the criminals to taint his already tainted arse…hey, Jeffie, let's hear you before the HJC.....

lunamagica

(9,967 posts)

7. That's too bad

Reply to hlthe2b (Original post)

Thu Apr 18, 2019, 03:30 PM

Apr 2019

Reply to this discussion