Civic Register
| 6.13.17

Sessions Offers Fiery Testimony Before Senate Intel Committee

Join us and tell your reps how you feel!

Attorney General Jeff Sessions testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee today and was quizzed by senators on topics ranging from the firing of former FBI Director James Comey, Sessions' meetings with Russian officials, to his recusal from the investigation into Russian meddling in the election.

In his fiery opening remarks, Sessions pushed back against the suggestion that he was aware of and helped to facilitate Russian interference in the 2016 election, calling such insinuations an "appalling and detestable lie." Sessions contradicted reports that he’d had a third meeting with Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak at the Mayflower Hotel prior to a foreign policy speech given by then-presidential candidate Donald Trump, while acknowledging the two meetings with Kislyak he’d previously disclosed. He added that his recusal from the Russia probe didn’t preclude him from “defending his honor against scurrilous and dishonest allegations” and issued an outright denial that he was involved in any way in collusion with Russians to undermine the election:

When asked about his decision to recuse himself from the ongoing probe into Russian influence, Sessions said that it’s an established policy for an individual who served in an advisory or campaign capacity with the subject of an investigation to recuse themselves from participating in the investigation. As someone who served as a foreign policy advisor to the Trump campaign, Sessions said he "qualified as a significant advisor-type person" so he recused himself, not out of concern that he could be targeted by the probe.

That led to a question about a comment made last week to the committee by former FBI Director James Comey during his testimony that there were unreported "problematic" matters that prompted Sessions’ recusal which he couldn’t discuss. Sessions forcefully called that suggestion innuendo and denied the existence of such matters during an exchange with Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR):

Interactions between Sessions and Comey, especially in light of the attorney general’s recusal, were also the subject of questioning during the hearing. Sessions pushed back against Comey’s assertion that he just shrugged when the former FBI leader informed him that he was uncomfortable with being in direct communication with Trump regarding the Russia probe. Sessions said he told Comey that there are policies for the Dept. of Justice and FBI to follow in contacting the White House, and told the committee that while those rules don’t prohibit such interactions he expected Comey to follow those policies, which he did to his knowledge.

The attorney general’s involvement in Comey’s firing also came up, with Sessions saying that the memo he wrote to echo what Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein — the FBI director’s immediate supervisor — detailed in his "did not violate my recusal." Sessions cited a “lack of discipline” that he’d observed over time as being a key factor in his decision to back Rosenstein’s decision.

In Rosenstein’s memo, he outlined the mishandling of the Hillary Clinton investigation, from usurping then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s authority to make a decision about bringing charges to holding a press conference to discuss that no charges were appropriate which contradict DOJ policy. Notably, Sessions said that he and Rosenstein had discussed those issues before they were even confirmed because they’d become such a point of controversy among current and former members of the DOJ community.

One aspect of Sessions’ testimony that drew repeated questions from Democratic members of the committee was his declining to answer questions involving discussions he’d had with President Trump, particularly as they relate to potential pardons. Sessions cited the need for confidentiality in why he wouldn’t answer those questions but stopped short of invoking executive privilege, saying that it’d be "premature for me to deny the president a full and intelligent choice about executive privilege."

It’s worth noting that there have been other times in recent years when members of an administration declined to comment without invoking executive privilege — such as the refusal by a member of former President Obama’s national security team to testify about his discussions with the president regarding the messaging of the Iran nuclear deal. Senators asked Sessions to consult with the White House about whether he could be cleared to respond to those questions in future, either in writing or in a closed hearing.

Tell your reps what you think of the testimony offered by Attorney General Sessions using the Take Action button.

— Eric Revell

(Photo Credit: Office of the President-elect / Creative Commons)