Before we discuss whether or not Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III perjured himself during his Attorney General confirmation hearings, let’s look at what he said about President Bill Clinton perjuring himself in front of a grand jury and what he thought that meant for his fitness to serve as the “chief law-enforcement officer of the land.”
You know, it’s fair to say that the president is the chief law enforcement officer of the land, but it’s also accurate to say that about the Attorney General. The president wears a lot of hats, and he basically relies on his Attorney General and the Department of Justice to enforce the law. The buck ultimately stops with Donald Trump, but it’s more accurate to say that Jeff Sessions is in charge of law enforcement. By his own standard, if he committed perjury in a congressional hearing, “equal justice demands that he forfeit his office.”
So, why don’t we watch a little video of Jeff Sessions lying to Sen. Al Franken during his confirmation hearing.
About a minute into that video, Sessions acknowledges that he was a surrogate for Donald Trump during the campaign but claims that he had no communications with the Russians. That wasn’t close to being true.
Then-Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) spoke twice last year with Russia’s ambassador to the United States, Justice Department officials said, encounters he did not disclose when asked about possible contacts between members of President Trump’s campaign and representatives of Moscow during Sessions’s confirmation hearing to become attorney general.
The ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, is the same guy that Michael Flynn talked to on December 29th about undercutting the sanctions that President Obama imposed against Russia earlier that day. In addition to meeting individually with Kislyak at a Heritage Foundation event in July, Sessions met with him in person in his Senate office on September 8th.
Now that these meetings have been disclosed, Sessions claims that the September meeting had nothing to do with the campaign. That’s important, because if they discussed the campaign, then he lied to Sen. Patrick Leahy in addition to lying to Sen. Al Franken:
In January, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) asked Sessions for answers to written questions. “Several of the President-elect’s nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?” Leahy wrote.
Sessions responded with one word: “No.”
It’s hard to imagine that it will be possible to prove what Sessions and Kislyak discussed in the privacy of Sessions’ senate chambers, but it’s nearly impossible to believe Sessions’ explanation that it was all related to the business of the Armed Services Committee.
The Washington Post contacted all 26 members of the 2016 Senate Armed Services Committee to see whether any lawmakers besides Sessions met with Kislyak in 2016. Of the 20 lawmakers who responded, every senator, including Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.), said they did not meet with the Russian ambassador last year. The other lawmakers on the panel did not respond as of Wednesday evening.
“Members of the committee have not been beating a path to Kislyak’s door,” a senior Senate Armed Services Committee staffer said, citing tensions in relations with Moscow. Besides Sessions, the staffer added, “There haven’t been a ton of members who are looking to meet with Kislyak for their committee duties.”
I don’t know if there are big or small coincidences, or just coincidences, but it would be some kind of coincidence if the only guy on the Senate Armed Services Committee who was serving as a surrogate to Trump was the only member to meet with the Russian ambassador and it didn’t have anything to do with the campaign.
I need to go back and look at the September 8th timeframe and see how it checks out with stories that were unfolding at the time, as well as things that were suggested in the British dossier.
There is so much smoke here at this point that we’re either looking at a volcano or the shadow of a smoking gun.
Sessions knew what Franken and Leahy were asking and he knew why they were asking it. He lied.
Nancy Pelosi has already demanded that Sessions resign. Sessions issued the following statement professing confusion.
Since he knows perfectly well what the allegation is about (there he is on video tape lying to Sen. Franken), this statement is another bald-faced lie.
Some will defend Sessions saying that he didn’t mean to be misleading and that we should take him at his word. That’s politics, but it’s disgraceful.
There is no way he can be allowed to have anything to do with the investigation over Russian hacking since he is now a prime suspect in collusion.
He’s already a hypocrite since he demanded that Bill Clinton resign for lying under oath and yet he refuses to resign for the exact same crime.
And, think about it. Clinton lied to protect his marriage and himself from embarrassment. Sessions lied because he didn’t want anyone to know that he was working with the Russian ambassador during the height of the Russian leaking operation.
Sessions should resign.
When Bill Clinton testified that “I didn’t have sex with that woman”, it was decided that a bj was a form of sex so he lied under oath. The state of Arkansas suspended his law license and Sen. Jeff Sessions voted to remove Clinton from office.
Now, we are talking about colluding with a foreign government to influence an election – AKA treason – and he lied under oath on world television. The whole planet knows he’s a liar. He should resign, be disbarred, and tried for perjury and possibly treason
It doesn’t seem too complicated. He should resign and maybe, just maybe this extends to others. But Jeff, leave.
Atty Gen L Lynch had to recluse herself after having a conversation with Bill Clinton….because emails.
That Bill Clinton statement isn’t verbatim and was said in public address, not in a deposition or court of law and not under oath.
That’s what I thought! Thank you.
Drives me nuts that people can’t get easy to verify facts correct. Had Clinton made such a statement under oath, it would have been much more difficult for him to avoid conviction in the Senate or a federal indictment for perjury.
I recall a reasonable argument on the perjury stuff that noted that since his intent was not to mislead for legal purposes but for political purposes, he lacked the intent to commit perjury.
Many moons ago though.
I will repeat: Prosecutors hate perjury cases.
Yes, many moons ago. iirc back then I did read whatever was released of Clinton’s testimony. Didn’t seem to me to be close to slam dunk evidence of perjury. More troubling to me at the time was that the Clinton-Lewinsky relationship had no relevance to Starr’s assigned investigation. It was in witch hunt territory.
As I recall, Bill had been given a very specific written definition of sexual activity by the plaintiff attys and he noted that under that narrow definition, he had not engaged in any, and so testified.
So technically it was not perjury, but in the COPO it was deemed misleading at best.
What a mess. He never should have allowed himself to be put in the position of testifying under oath, even in a civil proceeding, about his private consensual sexual conduct. I wish more Dems in leadership at the time had so counseled him (clearly his own lawyer — Boob Bennett — did not), and had made their views public on that and the politically-driven fishing expedition by the Starr team.
Recall also that at that time, the MSM was heavily anti-Clinton, especially on all the dubious scandals, and what there was of left independent media was divided and ineffective. Quite a contrast to today.
This has the appearance of perjury. If that’s good enough to remove Democrats, it’s good enough to remove Sessions from Attorney General.
In fact, Sessions has some unconstitutional views of his job and national policy that should have prevented him from being confirmed.
The question to ask in the investigation is “Who set the appointment and when?” “And why?” If Bannon or Manafort were involved, there might be other instances of perjury in the cabinet.
Then the question becomes, “Why did they perjure themselves?”
“Having the appearance of…” is good enough for political purposes but only if it sticks.
Do we have any accepted journalist willing to tackle this without falling into the trap of being dismissed as just pushing Clinton revenge?
At the moment this says everything about lying in the Trump campaign and little at all about Russia, Russia’s actions, and Russia’s motives. But that evidence could come out if properly pursued. The intelligence community’s unwillingness to provide the public with hard evidence has been the problem with this story all along. It’s time that the intelligence community confess how they use their surveillance against members of Congress and Presidents.
Not sure I follow your last sentence. If we regularly conduct surveillance on Russian officials, and they happen to speak with American politicians, that is not surveillance directed towards the American politicians as such, even if it captures communications by the American politicians. Maybe I’m misunderstanding.
You are misunderstanding. The point is not to inform, but to cloud and confuse. Use lots of words, but say as little as possible…then impugn the source. Read the comments….it’s used over and over.
Putin can do no wrong, and if he did wrong, you can’t prove it. And if you can prove it, a democrat did it too.
And anyway….it’s just the appearance of perjury. And who cares how something appears?
.
Nalbar that’s a bit unfair in this case. There are some who post here that are far more guilty than Tarheel of playing such games. I think what he/she was getting at is that the intelligence community probably has more evidence of malfeasance than they have released, in part because they may have illegally bugged congress critters and the president. He/she might be right about that.
I’m saying that the intelligence community must have more evidence than they have released to the public for Democrats to still be plugging this issue.
But I also think that the matter of illegal surveillance also needs to be aired and aired for all of the history during which it has occurred.
Some political operatives are just too close to the party line to parse the situation properly if it does not state chapter and verse the party line.
You want to make a case against Russia. Make it with evidence. But be prepared to have those same standards of journalism apply to the US government and both parties.
“…the shadow of a smoking gun” ?? That’s some strange metaphor. Things we know: a) the Trump Administration lies. all. the. time; b) GOP Congress is totally fine with the lying and the treason and the corruption as long as the Orange Monster signs their bills. I don’t see this situation changing at all for the foreseeable future.
To TarHeel’s point, the question cited has the appearance of perjury. You can argue, though, this exchange is not:
The question was not did you have ANY contact, but rather contact about the election. If he met with the Russians but did not discuss the election, his answer is not perjury.
The far more damaging exchange (I take this account from the Chicago Tribune) is this:
One of the first things any lawyer tells their client is to answer the question, and not volunteer information beyond the scope of the question asked. It is clear here that Franken is asking about contacts related to the election.
Sessions answer far exceeds this scope. He says he did not have any communications, period
Perjury is a damn hard crime to prove, because you have to prove specific intent. Put another way, the defendant has to make a statement he knew was false with the intent to deceive another. This latter part is harder than you think to prove, and why so few perjury cases are brought.
Prosecutors hate perjury charges.
So Sessions could argue his answer meant to be only related to the question: no contact with respect to the election. As a result even though the statement was factually incorrect, it was NOT made with the intent to deceive.
But on the face of it that is not the answer he gave. Moreover in the contact of a proceeding clearly focus on Russian contacts, it defies logic to suggest he was not deliberately trying to mislead Franken.
Wouldn’t want to try the case, though.
Unless you have evidence that he DID talk about the election.
And the story moves some:
@JohnJHarwood
Trump admin official on Sessions/Russian envoy:
“superficial comments about election-related news, not substance of their discussion”
The actual question:
Sessions was an idiot (which we already knew) for answering an extremely broad and loaded hypothetical in anything other than the broadest and most generic fashion. i.e. If confirmed as Attorney General of the United States and in that capacity (which is what I assume you meant although you didn’t include that in the question), I’d follow the law and the conventional and traditional practices of that office. (If he wanted to get cute, he could have added that he wouldn’t as AG secretly meet with a representative of the person or persons subject to the investigation.) Then add, if you would care to ask me a more defined and specific question, I would be happy to answer it.
Appears that Claire McCaskill has just weakened the “case” against Sessions:
People in glass houses should resist throwing stones.
Tom Cotton’s aide is on twitter demanding an investigation into DEMOCRATIC contacts with the Russians. He has an invite list with the Russian Ambassador that includes McCaskill and Markey.
One thing all of this shows: Sessions is an awful lawyer: his was a mistake EVERY fricken trail lawyer educates their client about before testifying.
Do not make broad generalizations. Answer specific questions by repeating the question in the answer.
Example: Senator to the best of my recollection I did not meet with the Russians for the purpose of discussing the election.
This man is Attorney General. I wouldn’t hire him to get me out of a parking ticket.
He’s been getting away with easily detectable lies for years, though, on his imaginary work for civil rights. He lied to Franken about that more than he did about Kislyak.
Not looking as if the Democratic Senators that are lawyers are any better than Sessions. Too soon to tell but they may have opened a whoop-ass can of worms for themselves.
We sure hope so, don’t we.
Judging just from a few video excerpts of his testimony, Sessions struck me as rather too casual and relaxed, as if he knew he would be confirmed even with contrary questioning from the Dems, and thus failed to appreciate that even if confirmed as expected, his statements under oath, if misleading, could come back to haunt him. He was focused only on the narrow immediate goal of confirmation, rather than also considering the testimonial record he would leave behind for later scrutiny.
He does, I agree with you.
But at the end of the day not disclosing the meetings in a hearing where interest in Russia is high is pretty inexcusable.
Yep, inexcusable. Strange too as, with no other witnesses in his private office, he could have said they just talked Ukraine.
McCaskill’s revised statement, FWIW:
(I think it’s worth something)
I too think this clarifying statement from McCaskill is worth something. Context means a lot.
Are you giving Sessions the same consideration?
McCaskill tweeted:
That’s a lie. A more direct lie than is evident from Session’s statements.
Who the fuck cares about what Sen. McCaskill says?
How is that relevant?
You’re just deflecting.
Jeff Sessions fully understood that the question was whether, as Attorney General, he would be willing to pursue an investigation of any Trump staff or surrogates or close associates who had direct dealings with the Russian government during the campaign.
Rather than saying that he would be willing to do that, he instead offered the explanation that he was himself a surrogate and he had not had any communications with anyone from the Russian government.
This wasn’t an answer to the question so much as an expression of skepticism that the question was pertinent or likely to ever become important. He wouldn’t have to make such a choice because the Trump campaign was clean.
Yet, he met with the Russian ambassador individually at the Republican convention in his capacity as one of Trump’s key national security advisers, at a time when the platform was being altered to soften the GOP’s position on Ukraine.
And he met with him privately in September as a time that Harry Reid was bellowing for Comey to do more to investigate Russian ties to Trump, and Putin was scrambling to cover fallout from Manfort’s resignation. The FBI was in the FISA court looking for a warrant to cover Carter Page, Roger Stone, and Manafort.
Sessions’s lie was only indirect on one sense, and that’s the sense that he wasn’t responding directly to the question he was asked. But the lie was very straightforward.
Who cares?
I have this odd revulsion for cheap shots and lies by all members of prosecuting teams, either formal or informal. Was wrong for all those sanctimonious members of Congress impeaching Clinton for an extramarital affair when they were also engaged in affairs. So, it was appropriate to care about the personal behavior of Newt and the others and expose it.
McCaskill is currently a member of the “get Sessions” prosecuting team. I share the goal, but only if they can make a truthful and honest case against him. So far it’s as much of a nothingburger as the House “get Hillary” over Benghazi which I’ve long been on record describing as despicable and a waste of time.
However Sessions understood the question, your paraphrase of the question was not how it was posed. But even your phrasing is asking for a commitment to a broad hypothetical. Only a fool would give the answer that you wanted.
I and you have no idea what Sessions knew at the time of that September meeting or what was discussed. Are you suggesting that Sessions had a pipeline to FBI investigations and secret FISA orders? How the hell do you know that “Putin was scrambling?”
You seriously think that the DC Russian ambassador would have met with Sessions months after the DNC and Podesta emails had been hacked to chortle over it?
McCaskill’s was a cheap shot, I’ll grant that, and she deserved to be called out and mocked. But she wasn’t under oath.
If his meetings with Kislyak were part of his normal duties as Strategic Forces Subcommittee chair or whatever he should have acknowledged them. Franken’s question in particular didn’t even ask him to speak about himself but about how he would handle the situation of other staffers having Russian contacts, as AG. He failed to answer the question and instead volunteered that he had had no such contacts himself. He went out of his way to lie.
Sorry — that was a truncated version of the question and answer. The complete version is:
Not as dumb on Sessions part as the truncated (Franken’s question is paraphrased) question made it appear.
it wouldn’t matter if Jeff Sessions strangled someone to death and it was captured on video with ten eye witnesses. This administration has already wriggled out of more illegal and immoral crimes than any other and they will continue to do so.
The administration will find a way to turn Sessions’ meetings with the Russians into some social event or claim his meetings, if they even existed (haha) were benign protocol in nature.
This is not politics as usual. This is politics by Republicans, a bastardized version where the Constitution is run through the wringer and whatever comes out will benefit only them.
The only way he’ll resign is if Senate Repubs see this as an actual threat to 2018 reelection campaigns. Why? Senate Repubs might have to make noise about an honest-to-goodness investigation, ie., subpoena people. That would mean public testimony under oath with Dems getting a crack at the people behind the table. That much light on the cockroaches would be too much even for Twitler.
A resignation would mean no additional lights shining under rocks. We’ve seen how this would play out with the Flynn example.
Until, or if, that message is communicated from Senate Repubs, this will be standard IOKIYAR.
And then there’s the question of why Kislyak was at a Heritage Foundation event at the GOP Convention? A Convention where the platform was re written to include language about Ukraine.
As Josh Marshall of TPM points out, even more problematic about the meeting with Kislyak is that Sessions thought he needed to lie about it.
Oh, and Kislyak is apparently Russia’s top spy recruiter. How interesting.