The Washington Post (3/1/17) plays down its scoop.
The Washington Post, which broke the Jeff Sessions/Russian ambassador story (3/1/17), is framing it to minimize political damage to the attorney general. Here’s the headline:
Sessions Met With Russian Envoy Twice Last Year, Encounters He Later Did Not Disclose
But the problem is not that Sessions “did not disclose” his meetings with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak; it’s that he lied about them under oath.
As the Post‘s story notes in its sixth paragraph, when asked during his confirmation hearings about contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, he replied, “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.”
“I did not have communications with the Russians”—an unqualified denial of the kind of meetings he now acknowledges that he had.
Given the impact of media perception on DC reality, if the Post had accurately headlined its story “Sessions Lied Under Oath About Meeting With Russians,” he might be in far more political (not to mention legal) jeopardy—but that kind of forthrightness was reserved for partisan outlets like Think Progress (3/2/17), whose story was headed “Sessions Lied to Congress About His Contacts With Russia During the Trump Campaign.”
Likewise, the Post piece reports in the third paragraph that Sessions “has so far resisted calls to recuse himself” from a hypothetical investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election. In the 22nd paragraph, though, we learn that calls have gone far beyond recusal: “Several Democratic members of the House on Wednesday night called on Sessions to resign from his post”—including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
It’s a mistake to think that the era of online news has eroded the power of the traditional media establishment. The fact is that with monthly visitors surpassing 80 million, and 90,000 websites linking to it, WashingtonPost.com‘s reach far exceeds what the print-only Post ever dreamed of. The spin the outlet that breaks a story puts on that story can be replicated across social media with the speed of a mouse click. And in this case, the spin seems designed to limit the threat to Sessions’ job—let alone the threat of prosecution for perjury.
Jim Naureckas is the editor of FAIR.org. You can find him on Twitter: @JNaureckas.
Messages can be sent to the Washington Post at letters@washpost.com, or via Twitter @washingtonpost. Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective.
Why does Fair use the words “did not disclose” instead of what it actually is “LIED”? America is looking for Democrats, Liberals, Media that are not COWARDS and just report the truth!
So why don’t you yourself say “committed perjury”.
Because that was on top of Naureckas’s suggestion that the more apt WaPo headline would have been “Sessions Lied Under Oath About Meeting With Russians,” Did you just skim the article before you got your rancor exercised?
the question was asked if he had talked to Russian Ambassador about the campaign. He said no because he hadn’t.
Nope. Here’s the question and answer in its entirety:
Franken: CNN just published a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president-elect last week that included information that quote, ‘Russian operatives claimed to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump.’ These documents also allegedly say quote, ‘There was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump’s surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.’
Now, again, I’m telling you this as it’s coming out, so you know. But if it’s true, it’s obviously extremely serious and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?
Sessions: Senator Franken, I’m not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I didn’t have — did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it.
I still say “meeting with Russians” is about the least corrupt thing you’ll ever see these guys do. I really think this is the worst issue imaginable for the Democrats to latch onto. But I’m sure it pleases the Clintonite/Neocon war hawks.
agreed
If it’s so innocuous to “meet with the Russian,” then why does everybody in the Trump administration seem to lie about doing exactly that?
Because there’s a freakin’ Witch Hunt going on about Russia. You can’t even talk to Russia without being called a traitor now. The whole country has decided to descend into collective hysteria about Russia.
When someone asks you, “Do you now or have you ever had contact with Russia?” The correct answer is “None of your dam business, McCarthyist pig!” But politically, you can’t do that in America.
I dunno… You can talk to Russia all you want. You just can’t lie about it in your confirmation hearings.
Russia is not our ally. It’d be nice if they were, but I disagree with the Trump administration plan of calling them an ally and crossing your fingers that they live up to it. I disagree even more strongly when it seems like this administration’s policy is being driven by their personal business interests instead of the national security interests of the country.
Considering who our allies are these days, I have more respect for the Russians that they aren’t one. Though I think what’s on the table isn’t “Russia as ally” but “Russia taken off the list of countries that the United States constantly pokes and prods at”. That IS something we can do ourselves.
That said, this idea that Trump is useful to the Russians for what he’ll do for Russia is, I think, wholly wrong. He’s useful to them as a divisive ignoramus who will do 10x the damage to our national reputation that George W. Bush did and Obama largely failed to rebuild.
The US government has always been run for people’s business interests – that’s basically the history of the US outside of some very rare moments.
What’s being lost in all of this are principles. There’s so much hatred pointed at Trump, we’re losing sight of policies and focusing on personalities.I’ve already seen liberals praise the TPP just because Trump scrapped it. Liberals joining with pro-war scum like David Frum just because he’s against Trump. And now we have people acting like avoiding a second Cold War is surrendering to some uncanny force of evil. People who should know better and seemed to about eight years ago.
Absolutely correct. This Russia business is a false dark path to nowhere. Lying under oath please. Where is it going to go other than to fan the flames of the new cold war, undermine legitimate resistance to Trump, and to lure the Democrats into attacking Trump from the right on war.
You Democrats. You must really really believe that you got Trump, to go out on such a limb.
First of all, you’re wrong, here you are thinking “well its lying under oath and so that means we got him”. It’s so naïve. To assume that “lying under oath”, translates into “Trump being in any trouble”.
The other thing is, what if Trump decides to provoke the Russians, for example by getting started with his agenda for war against the Iranians.
What is your counter-move if Trump decides to provoke the Russians?
Do you realize that Trump could get this whole Russian thing, and ten times more, totally behind him just by provoking the Russians. Just by out-warring, the Democrats and bi-partisans.
All Trump has to do is show he is more war-like than the Democrats, and your whole advantage on this Russia business is not only gone – it’s blow up in all our faces.
“But, Trump would neeeever do that! I know for sure!!!”
Lying under oath please.
_______________________________________
Yeah! When’s the last time that got someone in trouble or a President to stand for impeachment?!
See, that’s where you’re dreaming. The Democratic Party leadership has already announced – as they did with W. Bush so many years ago – that the so-called “I-word” is off the table.
If you’re putting your faith in them, I’m sorry for you.
All they will do is string you along while they let Trump be the bad guy while ramming through all the awful pro-business and pro-war policies the corporate/war Democrats secretly love, while putting up a phony fight. And people will cheer it during the two-minutes hate.
This is what you get when you’ve abandoned all principle IMHO.
oy, so you think that Sessions can lie with impunity as the Attorney General, It is his job to catch people who lie, and he lies on a simple thing on his way in a legal session, I know a lot of people don’t have respect for congress anymore, but still, there should be somethings that are followed through on. The fact that he lied about being a racist should be enough but apparently congress did not want to hear about his record, so maybe this is what is needed.
I know a lot of people have no respect for the government, but here we have a man who is a lawyer who should know better lie several times because he thought he could get away with it – that alone should require he leave office – this is a big deal, but some people are so vested in “Russia is innocent” they can’t see it.
PS, to those defending Russia – tell it to the Ukraines
Ukraine’s a complicated story. If we hadn’t upset the applecart by destabilizing the country and finally overthrowing the democratically elected government, the people would never have revolted against the illegal coup, and Russia would never have gotten involved to defend its interests, because its interests wouldn’t have been threatened.
When they let Clapper and Hayden get away with similar behavior, it was over. In the 70s they weren’t shy about indicting Dick Helms.
Let me get this straight… talking to the KKK is A-Ok, but talk to Russia… well then, that’s it! Resign!
To which the self-appointed defenders of the Constitution reply that it’s not the contact itself, it’s the lying to Congress. Riiiight.
Of course those same people were just fine when Clinton lied to congress about sex with Monica. And conversely, all the people who were calling for Clinton’s head on a silver platter, are now fine with Sessions.
Me… I say it was BS then, and it’s BS now. Sessions should never have been confirmed, and I can think of at least three reasons he shouldn’t be AG. Hint: they all start with a “K.” But this is NOT one of them! Just like there were a thousand reasons Clinton should have been impeached, but sex in the Oval Office was not one of them. Am I the only person in America who is not a hypocrite?
Oh, and speaking of hypocrites… what’s the big deal about Kellyanne Conway putting her feet up on the couch? It’s not like she gave Trump a blowjob in the Oval Office or anything!
Maybe Sessions can use the James Clapper excuse: “I didn’t lie. I just forgot.”
But no, probably not. That only works when the thing you’re lying about is something that “respectable” members of the establishment are fine with: like NSA SPYING ON AMERICANS!!!
Greg- You crack me up. I agree it’s all BS. No matter how much I’ve read, I don’t get what the big deal is. So they’ve been speaking with Russian ambassadors, so what? So they lied about it. Everyone in government lies. But I’m scratching my head over the seeming double-standard applied to Flynn and Sessions. Like many others, I’m of the mind Flynn was a target of the Deep State. He didn’t share their views on Russia, so he had to go. Got it. But Sessions… I can’t figure out why he’s been targeted. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all about him being shown the door, but there’s definitely something rotten in Denmark. I’m sure time will tell, but I’m impatient.
Re: Kellyanne, my guess is it wasn’t respectable, proper lady-like behavior for the highest office of the land… or something. I don’t know. None of the tweets I read said anything substantial.
Because it’s not about Sessions. It’s about Russia. The modern empire needs control of the world’s resources, especially if it’s to maintain its status as the sole global superpower. Russia represents a challenge to that vision, so it must be choked off, and ideally ultimately broken up. Since Russia got off its knees in the last 15 years or so, establishment Washington has become increasingly desperate about enforcing total adherence to that ideology. You stray from it just a little bit, and you’re out.
Yes, I get all that. But I don’t see how Sessions fits into it. Why him? As a means to impeach Trump? Doesn’t make sense. It all seems ‘much ado about nothing.’
Yeah, these are steps along the way to impeachment. The Democrats prefer an establishment theocrat (Pence) to someone who has even mild disagreements with the party line. And Republicans will happily go along when the time comes. It’s a given they prefer Pence.
The only reason it hasn’t begun yet, is because they need to dent Trump’s approval rating. As long as a sizeable number of people still back him, they’re a little worried about the backlash. But if they can get that approval rating down into the teens (ideally), then the coast is clear for a coup. After that, it’s game on for war with Russia.
A good idea to meet with whoever, though doing so in secret in an attempt to “rig” elections isn’t cool. Reminds me of the Nixon-Kissinger fix with N. Vietnam to delay peace talks in 1968 so that Humphrey wouldn’t have something positive to show the U.S. public during the Humphrey-Nixon election contest. (That tens of thousands of lives might have been saved wasn’t as important as a Nixon victory to Nixon-Kissinger). Another memory: The manipulations on Reagan’s behalf in Oct. 1980 to delay the release of the U.S. embassy people being held in Iran so that Carter wouldn’t have that achievement during the Carter-Reagan campaign.
A pretty sorry history, or shall we say “tradition?”
Yes, many other terrible things were done and are being done. As usual, and to go back to Nixon as an example, he was impeached for the morally weaker reasons, as was Clinton.
There is a huge, yawning gap between having a preference and rigging an election. Every country had a preference and “interfered” in that way. Israel interferes in our elections massively, every single time. Russia probably preferred the candidate who wasn’t trying to start a war with them. I don’t blame them. But there’s zero evidence they tried to rig the election. Rigging the election is what we did for Yeltsin in 1996, and then made a Hollywood movie about it bragging about how awesome it was.
Greg: What’s the movie about Yeltsin? I’m curious.
I believe the movie was called “Selling Boris.”
FAIR itself made mention of the event in December
https://fair.org/home/hypocrisy-of-russia-did-it-stories-is-hard-to-stomach/
You know who appointed Putin? Boris Yeltsin, the man who shelled his own parliament.
And do you know how Boris Yeltsin won his election? Look it up.
Whereas.
The liberals already knew the DNC was cheating Bernie Sanders, before the proof of it was leaked. And it has not been specifically even alleged that the Bernie Sanders revelations specifically came from Russia.
You’re right about both of those things, except that they were way way worse than gabbing w/ Russia about sanctions. And the Democrats did nothing about either of those. In fact, the Democrats were instrumental in getting the October Surprise swept under the rug. Just as Robert Parry.
You’re right about both of those things, except that they were way way worse than gabbing w/ Russia about sanctions. And the Democrats did nothing about either of those. In fact, the Democrats were instrumental in getting the October Surprise swept under the rug. Just as Robert Parry.
The last paragraph raps up the purpose of the Washington Post and the New York Times. They both serve as tools for propaganda whether for government or industry. They are the “Enemies of Truth” and in that role;they are “Enemies of the People”, period. In a mouse click, propaganda is spread far and wide.
Not to defend the sleazeball rightwing nut Sessions, likely a K cubed member, but how many other parties have lied under oath to Congress?
Rice, Powell, Clapper, Hayden, and that’s just off the top of my head.
Got evidence that Sessions was acting for campaign Trump when speaking to the Russian ambassador, now that’s much more serious.
Of course no one ever did anything about Bill Casey and H. W. Bush talking to the Iranians in the fall of 1980. But there’s little, very little, like zero, evidence for crimes at that level in campaign Trump.
Hillary lost because she ran an horrid campaign, can’t say she wasn’t warned. Can’t say that we didn’t have 2008 to go by–she didn’t learn from that. Can’t say she kept herself uncorrupted after leaving the State Department, can’t say she followed normal rules for conducting the affairs of government while at State. Can’t say she got the crowds of Bernie Sanders.
Sadie Holly’s commen about what caused Sessions to lie (or selectively forget, if we want to be generous) is insufficient. Perhaps he thought it through and concluded his contact with ambassador was unlikely to be discovered,, but whether he did that that thinking or not, the motivation was likely his desire to saay whatever he believed in the.moment would assist his winning approval and avoiding rejection, and his desire to attain a position of power to enact a role other than as victim of the forms of mistreatment in early.life which his behavior and belief system make it easy for us to imagine.
The approach I am suggesting leads to the observation that a particular form of authoritarianism shapes and manifests in Pres. Trump, his appointees, and his statements and policies, and resonates with enough with the general culture, media, and populace to have moved Trump (and Sessions, et al.) into their current positions.
If the Post is trying to protect Sessions, why the hell would they run the story in the first place? Duh?
To give the (false) appearance of being legit news?
That doesn’t even make sense. They break a damning sorry and then try to protect the subject of it??? If they’re trying to make themselves look legit, like you claim, aren’t there a million other ways to do that besides publishing an exposé on someone they’re supposedly trying to protect???
Or are they simply trying to fulfill their ethical obligation to avoid using loaded language and err on the side of caution?
“Yeah, this Sessions guy… Let’s spend a ton of money investigating his contacts with Russia, but we gotta protect him. So let’s not use the word ‘lie’.”
I mean, if another paper broke the story, MAYBE that argument would make sense… but THEY broke it. If they were trying to protect him, they would bank on nobody else breaking the story, and if someone did, just piggyback on their coverage.