Jeff Sessions’ Racism was Totes Cool with His Party…but Lying to Congress?

The Real Jim Shady
Mar 2, 2017 · 6 min read
“I vow to lie my lilly-white Alabama ass off whenever i get the chance to grab more power and to take away your civil liberties!”

Some people just lie, right? We know politicians lie. According to Politifact, the Pulitizer Prize winning, non-partisan site that reports on the lies told by people in the public eye, POTUS Trump (let’s call him Adolph Twittler) lies about 70% of the time. Yeah! What the fuck is up with that? But really, we’re used to politicians lying to us. That’s a real failure, and it’s our failure as a nation. If someone lies to you, and you don’t hold them accountable, don’t tell them to ‘fess up,’ don’t vote them out of office, you’re either unethical or a dumbass or both. But what about lying under oath — and to Congress? Oliver North was convicted of ‘obstructing a Congressional Inquiry’ when he lied to Congress in 1987 about the Iran-Contra Affair. So, Holy Shit, Batman! Do you mean to tell me that some lies violate the law? You’re Damn skippy. In some cases, you can go to jail for lying.

Just to clarify: Lying to Congress while under oath is covered in U.S. Law Code sections 1621 and 1001 of Title 18 . Here are the the two main statutes dealing with perjury:

Section 1621 covers general perjury. If the person giving sworn testimony “willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true,” s/he is guilty of perjury and shall be fined or imprisoned up to five years, or both.

Section 1001 covers false statements. In this case, you haven’t taken an oath. Here, “whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the government of the United States, knowingly and willfully” falsifies or conceals information, including before a congressional committee’s inquiry, can be fined or imprisoned up to five years.

So — you want some transcripts? I got your fucking transcript right here: The (mercifully brief) transcription of the conversation between Jeff Sessions and Senator Al Franken from the confirmation hearings on January 10, 2017. In case you’re wondering, Sessions was under oath.

SEN. AL FRANKEN: If there was any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this (2016) campaign, what would you do?

SESSIONS: 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 did not have communications with the Russians.

Let me repeat that for those who skip italics: Sessions said: “I did not have communications with the Russians.” What’s the problem with that statement? He did. He had two meetings with the Russian Ambassador during the campaign.

What’s that you say? You’re Fuckin’ A right, he lied. What’s more important is this, yo: He lied right the fuck under oath, which means that the current Attorney General of the United States of America stands in contempt of Congress. As I write, the Sessions KKKrew argues that the statement “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign,” counts as a get out of jail free card, that Sessions was differentiating between his work on the campaign and his contact with Russia as a Senator. Let’s think about that for a second.

Tony Stark doubts the veracity of the Attorney General’s claims

While you’re considering the conundrum, let’s remember that the House of Representatives impeached Bill Clinton for lying about cumming on Monica Lewinsky’s dress. Yes, I know. WTF, Shady! Why you gotta bring up the image of Bill Clinton’s ejaculate? BECAUSE I’m making a point, here. Clinton’s (admittedly absurd) defense of his own perjury came down to his famous claim that “It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” Clinton’s semantic defense didn’t alter that fact that he lied. WHY? Because you can’t make a lie into a truth. While we’re at it, Obi-Wan Kenobi lied his Jedi ass off when he said that Darth Vader had killed Luke’s father. So, when we’re talking about verifiable, on-the-record statements, the following are LIES:

  1. “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” (Spoken by Bill Clinton. LIE)
  2. “Darth Vader…betrayed and murdered your father.” (Spoken by Obi-Wan Kenobi. LIE).
  3. “I did not have communications with the Russians.” (Spoken by Jeff Sessions. LIE)

NOW — Jeff Sessions party could cover for his racism during the confirmation hearings, which shows that they’re some horrendously vile, ideology-over-honesty, pasty-white cock-splats, BUT will they allow him to stand in violation of the law and of his oath? Will they push the semantic argument bullshit? I’ll stipulate that, to my mind, lying about contact with a foreign government seems worse for the country than lying about — you know — consensually shared bodily fluids, but whatever.

I’m feeling pessimistic today, so I’m saying there’s no way on God’s increasingly decaying, flooding, polluted Earth that they’ll prosecute Sessions. BUT — will the Republicans demand that he step down from his post? Which is another way of asking the most important question we’ll have to face during the era of Adolph Twittler and his cadre of white corporate fascists: Are Republicans even willing to APPEAR as though they respect and will protect the laws and The Constitution of the United States?

When Clinton lied, the Republicans said they cared about the Law. One Republican in particular was very concerned. Who was that, again? Oh yeah, Jeff FUCKING Sessions:

Sessions’ letter on Clinton’s perjury.

The law must work the same way for all of its citizens, or it’s just a load of bull-fucking-shit, right? You cannot replace law with populism. That is to say even — or most especially — if you are an elected official, you must obey the law. You can’t ignore it just because you and your cohort want the laws to be different. As I see it, populism always proves to be incapable of respecting the law. It sets itself in opposition to the idea of law. Populism only respects will. It doesn’t negotiate or try to understand. It threatens its opponents. Populism is never democratic, folks, only passionate. Mainly, it respects the will-to-propagandize that drives the media, the press, and the current administration. A friend suggested that the correct analogy is to sports. Populism thinks in sporting terms like: “I hate that team,” OR, It’s “us vs. them,” no matter what! That analogy makes sense to me.

By the way, while I’m being moralistic, I’ll go ahead and admit that I have lied before. Every time I misstate the truth, someone catches me (every goddamn time!!), and I have to repent and accept responsibility for my lies. Why doesn’t the Attorney General have to take responsibility for his?

I hope that lilly-white Alabama ass feels all warm and toasty in that flaming pants fire, yo

Looking to do your part? One way to get involved is to read the Indivisible Guide, which is written by former congressional staffers and is loaded with best practices for making Congress listen. Or follow this publication, connect with us on Twitter, join us on Facebook, or check out our shop on Threadless.

Indivisible Movement

The stories and voices of people resisting the Republican agenda of #racism, #authoritarianism, and #corruption

The Real Jim Shady

Written by

I am a pop-culture fanatic, a thinker who philosophizes with a big, scary hammer, and a master of profane erudition. When they go low, I go lower!

Indivisible Movement

The stories and voices of people resisting the Republican agenda of #racism, #authoritarianism, and #corruption

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade