Attorney General Jeff Sessions testified today for the first time in an open, televised hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee that is investigating the Russians trying to affect the U.S. presidential campaign last year, allegedly to get Donald Trump elected. Mr. Sessions had been a Republican senator from Alabama for twenty years before President Trump appointed him as the U.S. Attorney General early this year.
I think AG Sessions was truthful throughout his appearance before the committee. However, I thought he presented two main problems for himself.
First, he repeatedly refused to answer senators’ questions pertaining to Sessions’ communications with President Trump. And he repeatedly gave the same reason for refusing to answer, which was a sort of executive-client privilege. Yet there is no such law for the attorney general and the president. It was repeatedly likened to executive privilege. However, Sessions admitted that it is only the president who can declare that certain of his communications have executive privilege status. Regarding such, the president is permitted by the U.S. Constitution for such communications to remain private. Yet Sessions admitted, as all are aware, that President Trump previously had not declared executive privilege regarding his communications with AG Sessions. Yet they surely strategized together about Sessions’ imminent appearance before the committee.
This presents a problem. Democratic Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon accused AG Sessions of “stonewalling.” He meant Sessions had no legal right to refuse to answer the committee’s questions. Sessions objected strongly, citing past protocol on this issue. One senator said the committee would look into the law about this issue.
Second, despite all the questioning of Mr. Sessions about why last month President Trump fired FBI Director James B. Comey, Sessions failed to clear this matter up. Upon President Trump’s request, on April 9th AG Sessions and Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein wrote a letter and memo, respectively, to the president about Comey’s mismanagement of the FBI. Sessions alleged specifically that Comey had mishandled the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Hilary Clinton’s use of a private server for her emails. Thus, he recommended in his letter that the president fire Comey for it, and it appeared he was doing so due to Comey’s handling of the Clinton investigation.
An associated problem was not mentioned in this hearing. Attorney General Sessions earlier had recused himself of the FBI’s Russia probe because of his earlier failure during the vetting process in which he answered in the negative about having met with Russian officials during the presidential campaign as a Trump surrogate when in fact he had. But he wrote in his recusal statement that as AG he would have nothing to do with any FBI investigation regarding the presidential campaign, which would have to include the Clinton investigation which he mentioned in his letter to the president as evidence for his recommending Comey’s firing.
But the main issue was that after making these two documents by AG Sessions and Deputy AG Rosenstein public, the White House gave conflicting reasons for President Trump’s firing of Comey. The press secretary said it was due to the recommendation in the two letters by Sessions and Rosenstein. Soon after that, there were media reports, claiming anonymous White House aids as source, that Mr. Rosenstein became irate, alleging that this was a misrepresentation of his letter and that he threatened to resign unless it was rescinded publicly. Indeed it was. Sessions had recommended in his letter that the president fire Comey; but Rosenstein had merely provided a detailed three-page memo telling how Comey had failed somewhat in exercising his duties. Thus, Rosenstein had not recommended in his memo that the president fire Comey. But the press secretary said both men recommended the president fire Comey.
So, on April 11th, President Trump announced to the media that he had decided, before he asked Sessions and Rosenstein to write their letter and memo, that he was going to fire Director Comey, and he added that he had in mind the Russian probe in doing so. It seems President Trump could live to regret this admission because that appears to be an obstruction of justice. And it is seems to be evidence that he hurts himself without having proper legal advise. As I have posted before, the U.S. president has the authority to fire the FBI director, but not if the president obstructs justice in doing so. For, the president seemed to mean he fired Comey because he would not stop the FBI’s Russia probe. Earlier, Mr. Trump had said publicly that this Russian probe was “hoax” and “a witch hunt.” Yet he never provided any evidence for why he said that. Moreover, it flew in the face of the entire U.S. intelligence community, which unanimously claimed the Russians had indeed compromised the presidential election last year.
Right before the committee began it’s session with Sessions (pun intended), the media reported that Trump friend Christopher Ruddy said President Trump was considering firing special counsel Robert Mueller. But Deputy AG Rosenstein–who now takes on AG Sessions’ authority over all things regarding the Russian probe because of Sessions’ recusal of it–soon was interviewed on television and said it is only he who has the authority to fire Mr. Mueller and that he will not do so. Indeed, Rosenstein hired Mueller recently as the special counsel-prosecutor of this Russia probe. But tonight, the media reported that the White House press secretary said President Trump will not fire special counsel Mueller.
So, was AG Sessions’ testimony and answers that he provided today before the Senate Intelligence Committee a plus or a minus for President Trump? Since there were no new and explosive revelations, the answer still falls along partisan lines–whether you are Republican or Democratic. But this investigation is just getting started.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In