In his sworn testimony in an open hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions repeatedly invoked what he insisted was a long-standing policy of the Justice Department not to speak about any conversation he had with the president -- even extended to something as mundane as whether the president asked him to leave the room so he could talk to James Comey alone.
Sessions acknowledged that the president had not invoked executive privilege and that only the president can do that. Still, he insisted that he was refusing to discuss his conversation to preserve for the president the option to do so in the future. Sessions was repeatedly challenged to cite the legal authorization for this claim, since he was under oath to "tell the whole truth." He could not.
Therefore Sean Illing, writing for vox.com news service has consulted ten legal experts about this. He writes:
"All but one of the experts rejected Sessions’s argument on its face, insisting that Sessions is legally permitted to discuss conversations with the president, provided the president hasn’t yet invoked executive privilege (which he hasn’t). One expert believes there is a precedent for Sessions’s actions, but that Congress can — and should — compel him to answer their questions."
No one accepted the vague Justice Department "policy" or "regulations" that Sessions referred to but couldn't say for sure that there is actually a written regulation on it. Even if there were, the legal experts said it would not override the right of an oversight committee hearing to have him answer the questions, as long as the president has not exerted executive privilege.
Even the tenth legal expert would not go further than saying there is precedent for doing what Sessions did. But then he offered this suggestion: the committee should give the president a date certain by which he would exert privilege, or else the committee could recall Sessions and compel him to testify fully.
But how do you compel Sessions to testify? He would have to be held in contempt of congress. This would then lead to a court trial -- with all the delays built into that. So it's probably not worth going that route.
Trump and Sessions may have finessed this, for now. By not evoking privilege, Trump avoided the outrage and charges of "cover-up" that would ensue. By taking this middle ground of "preserving the right to invoke privilege," even though it won't hold up, Sessions tested the waters. If the committee decided to push it -- like beginning contempt proceedings -- then Trump can always step in and invoke the privilege.
So the best way forward is probably what that tenth expert, Ohio State law professor Peter Shane suggested: demand an answer from the president by a certain date; if he does not then invoke privilege, bring Sessions back -- and question him again, without allowing his phony "preserve the president's options" excuse.
Beyond whether there is legal justification, however, is the political and practical effect of Sessions' stonewalling. First, he may have restored himself at least temporarily in the good graces of the president, who has been angry that he recused himself in the first place. Second, it appeared that he evoked frustration and probably anger in all of the Democrats on the committee and even some of the Republicans. And finally he made himself the object of ridicule. Steven Colbert had a field day mimicking him and heaping scorn on his performance.
But even beyond that, at least to me, he showed himself unfit for the office of Attorney General. Here we have all of our intelligence and national security agencies in agreement that the Russians hacked into our political process. And the Attorney General has largely ignored this; he even seemed uninterested enough even to read reports about it. We can't count on him to do anything to protect us in the future. Fortunately there are other agencies that will. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III should be fired -- if only we had a president that wasn't in Russia's debt somehow.
Ralph
Saturday, June 17, 2017
Friday, June 16, 2017
Pres. Trump speaks out on witch hunts
President Donald J. Trump is being investigated by the FBI for possibly attempting to obstruct justice. He has responded, characteristically, by tweet:
You are witnessing the single greatest
WITCH HUNT in American political history - led by some very bad and conflicted
people! #MAGA
* * *
If we could time travel back to the 1690s, we would find 20 people, hanged for witchcraft, who might disagree about which is the GREATEST witch hunt in U.S. history.
The Guardian suggests possible perjury in Sessions' testimony
In the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Tuesday, Senator John McCain asked a very pointed question of Jeff Sessions: whether he ever had "any contacts with any representative, including any American lobbyist or agent of any Russian company" during the 2016 campaign. Sessions replied: "I don't believe so."
Two days later, The Guardian reporter Stephanie Kirchgaessner wrote that: "An American lobbyist for Russian interests. who helped craft an important foreign policy speech for Donald Trump, has confirmed that he attended two dinners hosted by Jeff Sessions during the 2016 campaign, apparently contradicting the attorney general’s sworn testimony given this week."
Richard Burt, who was ambassador to Germany in the Reagan administration, has more recently worked as a lobbyist in Washington representing Russian interests.
He volunteered the above about his personal contacts with Sessions. "I did attend two dinners with groups of former Republican foreign policy officials and Senator Sessions,” he told the reporter. He also said that he did not know whether Sessions knew about his work for the Russians, although it was disclosed in public records and was widely known in Washington circles.
As The Guardian reports: Burt "is managing director of the Europe and Eurasia practice" at his lobbying firm and "served as a lobbyist for the New European Pipeline AG" which is owned by the Russian state-owned oil company Gazprom. The pipeline he was lobbying for, which the Obama administration opposed, "is seen as making Europe more dependent on Russian energy exports."
Further, Burt not only attended the dinner but later worked on drafting Trump's first foreign policy speech, which Sessions also was intimately involved in producing. The speech was delivered at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, the one that senators kept questioning Sessions about whether he had met with Ambassador Kislyak there.
The Guardian further reported that, more recently, Burt has played down the significance of his contribution to the Trump speech, telling the Daily Beast that he "had transmitted his counsel through a third party intermediary." However, in May 2016, he told NPR that he had been "asked to provide a draft for that speech, and parts of that draft survived in the final [version]."
Whether this is what Burt wrote, I don't know, but in the speech Trump said that an “easing of tensions and improved relations with Russia – from a position of strength – is possible” and that “common sense says this cycle of hostility must end”.
So what we have here is another example of Sessions seeming to obfuscate and avoid his connections with Russian interests. John McCain is obviously looking at this; his question was too specific to think otherwise. I just wish he had pushed him more and not let him get away with "I don't believe so."
At the least, Sessions is probably in for a lot more scrutiny by the Intelligence Committee. The Judiciary Committee -- as the oversight committee for the Justice Department -- should look into Sessions' involvement. And I think we can be sure that Robert Mueller will also.
Ralph
Two days later, The Guardian reporter Stephanie Kirchgaessner wrote that: "An American lobbyist for Russian interests. who helped craft an important foreign policy speech for Donald Trump, has confirmed that he attended two dinners hosted by Jeff Sessions during the 2016 campaign, apparently contradicting the attorney general’s sworn testimony given this week."
Richard Burt, who was ambassador to Germany in the Reagan administration, has more recently worked as a lobbyist in Washington representing Russian interests.
He volunteered the above about his personal contacts with Sessions. "I did attend two dinners with groups of former Republican foreign policy officials and Senator Sessions,” he told the reporter. He also said that he did not know whether Sessions knew about his work for the Russians, although it was disclosed in public records and was widely known in Washington circles.
As The Guardian reports: Burt "is managing director of the Europe and Eurasia practice" at his lobbying firm and "served as a lobbyist for the New European Pipeline AG" which is owned by the Russian state-owned oil company Gazprom. The pipeline he was lobbying for, which the Obama administration opposed, "is seen as making Europe more dependent on Russian energy exports."
Further, Burt not only attended the dinner but later worked on drafting Trump's first foreign policy speech, which Sessions also was intimately involved in producing. The speech was delivered at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, the one that senators kept questioning Sessions about whether he had met with Ambassador Kislyak there.
The Guardian further reported that, more recently, Burt has played down the significance of his contribution to the Trump speech, telling the Daily Beast that he "had transmitted his counsel through a third party intermediary." However, in May 2016, he told NPR that he had been "asked to provide a draft for that speech, and parts of that draft survived in the final [version]."
Whether this is what Burt wrote, I don't know, but in the speech Trump said that an “easing of tensions and improved relations with Russia – from a position of strength – is possible” and that “common sense says this cycle of hostility must end”.
So what we have here is another example of Sessions seeming to obfuscate and avoid his connections with Russian interests. John McCain is obviously looking at this; his question was too specific to think otherwise. I just wish he had pushed him more and not let him get away with "I don't believe so."
At the least, Sessions is probably in for a lot more scrutiny by the Intelligence Committee. The Judiciary Committee -- as the oversight committee for the Justice Department -- should look into Sessions' involvement. And I think we can be sure that Robert Mueller will also.
Ralph
Thursday, June 15, 2017
John McCain destroys Sessions' rationale for meeting with Russian ambassador
In my June 14th post, I mentioned John McCain's landing a "big body blow" on AG Sessions by asking him what he talked with the Russian ambassador Kislyak about -- i.e. since he claimed his position on the Armed Services committee as his rationale for the meeting, did he talk about related issues?
I had not realized how devastating that was until I read the transcript of that portion, supplied by Kerry Eleveld on Daily Kos. Let me give you some of that here:
McCain: Did you raise concerns about Russia's support for President Bashar al-Assad and his campaign of indiscriminate violence against his own citizens, including his use of chemical weapons?
Sessions: I don't recall whether that was discussed or not.
McCain: Did you raise concerns about Russia's interference in our electoral process or its interference in the electoral processes of our allies?
Sessions: I don't recall that being discussed.
McCain: At those meetings, if you spoke with Kislyak in your capacity as a member of the Armed Services Committee, you presumably talked with him about Russia-related security issues that you have demonstrated as important to you as a member of that committee.
Sessions: Um, repeat that, Senator McCain. I'm sorry.
McCain: The whole Russia-related security issues that you demonstrated as important to you as a member of the committee -- Did you raise those with him?
Sessions: No, I did not.
McCain: In other words, Russian-related security issues in your capacity as the chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee -- what Russia-related issues did you hold hearings on or demonstrate a keen interest in?
Sessions: We may have discussed that. I just don't have a real recall of the meeting. I was not making a report about it to anyone. I just was basically willing to meet and see what he discussed.
McCain: And his response was?
Sessions: I don't recall.
In other words, Sessions had claimed that he met with the Russian ambassador, as he did with other ambassadors, to discuss issues related to his committee work on the Armed Services Committee. But, in fact, McCain destroyed the idea that he had any keen interest in that committee, not holding any hearings by the subcommittee he chaired. It's unlikely the meeting with the ambassador had anything at all to do with his committee work. More likely, he had an entirely different reason for meeting with Kislyak.
So what was the reason, Mr. Attorney General?
Ralph
I had not realized how devastating that was until I read the transcript of that portion, supplied by Kerry Eleveld on Daily Kos. Let me give you some of that here:
McCain: Did you raise concerns about Russia's support for President Bashar al-Assad and his campaign of indiscriminate violence against his own citizens, including his use of chemical weapons?
Sessions: I don't recall whether that was discussed or not.
McCain: Did you raise concerns about Russia's interference in our electoral process or its interference in the electoral processes of our allies?
Sessions: I don't recall that being discussed.
McCain: At those meetings, if you spoke with Kislyak in your capacity as a member of the Armed Services Committee, you presumably talked with him about Russia-related security issues that you have demonstrated as important to you as a member of that committee.
Sessions: Um, repeat that, Senator McCain. I'm sorry.
McCain: The whole Russia-related security issues that you demonstrated as important to you as a member of the committee -- Did you raise those with him?
Sessions: No, I did not.
McCain: In other words, Russian-related security issues in your capacity as the chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee -- what Russia-related issues did you hold hearings on or demonstrate a keen interest in?
Sessions: We may have discussed that. I just don't have a real recall of the meeting. I was not making a report about it to anyone. I just was basically willing to meet and see what he discussed.
McCain: And his response was?
Sessions: I don't recall.
In other words, Sessions had claimed that he met with the Russian ambassador, as he did with other ambassadors, to discuss issues related to his committee work on the Armed Services Committee. But, in fact, McCain destroyed the idea that he had any keen interest in that committee, not holding any hearings by the subcommittee he chaired. It's unlikely the meeting with the ambassador had anything at all to do with his committee work. More likely, he had an entirely different reason for meeting with Kislyak.
So what was the reason, Mr. Attorney General?
Ralph
Wednesday, June 14, 2017
NEWS BREAK: Trump now under criminal investigation for obstruction of justice
The Washington Post broke the story late Wednesday that President Donald Trump is now under criminal investigation for obstruction of justice. The story has five sources and is not denied by Trump's lawyer, who focused his outrage on the leaks.
Of course, we should remember that being investigated does not automatically mean that the person is guilty. But this is such a serious charge against a sitting president, that someone as experienced as Robert Mueller is unlikely to do so without solid reason to think he could back it up. Most legal scholars, including Laurence Tribe, say that there is a good case for obstruction, although one notable dissenter is Alan Dershowitz. Both are distinguished Harvard Law professors, although Dershowitz tends to be a bit more iconoclastic and bombastic.
Those known to have agreed to be interviewed as witnesses, concerning Trump's approach to them to assist in quashing the investigation, are: Dan Coates, Director of National Intelligence and Admiral Mike Rogers, head of the National Security Agency. In addition, Rogers' deputy at the time, Richard Ledgett, who apparently had knowledge at the time of the conversation between the president and Rogers, is also a potential witness. And of course we've already heard James Comey's testimony before the Senate.
This is potentially very explosive and comes much sooner than I was expecting. We know that Trump is said to have been considering firing Mueller. But he cannot do it himself. It would have to be the Attorney General; and, since Sessions is recused from this case, it would be Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein -- who said in his testimony to the Senate Intel Committee on Monday that he would not fire Mueller without good cause. So Trump would have to fire Rosenstein and replace him with someone who would. Shades of Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre." Beyond that, it would be political suicide for him to take that course.
Stay tuned.
Ralph
Of course, we should remember that being investigated does not automatically mean that the person is guilty. But this is such a serious charge against a sitting president, that someone as experienced as Robert Mueller is unlikely to do so without solid reason to think he could back it up. Most legal scholars, including Laurence Tribe, say that there is a good case for obstruction, although one notable dissenter is Alan Dershowitz. Both are distinguished Harvard Law professors, although Dershowitz tends to be a bit more iconoclastic and bombastic.
Those known to have agreed to be interviewed as witnesses, concerning Trump's approach to them to assist in quashing the investigation, are: Dan Coates, Director of National Intelligence and Admiral Mike Rogers, head of the National Security Agency. In addition, Rogers' deputy at the time, Richard Ledgett, who apparently had knowledge at the time of the conversation between the president and Rogers, is also a potential witness. And of course we've already heard James Comey's testimony before the Senate.
This is potentially very explosive and comes much sooner than I was expecting. We know that Trump is said to have been considering firing Mueller. But he cannot do it himself. It would have to be the Attorney General; and, since Sessions is recused from this case, it would be Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein -- who said in his testimony to the Senate Intel Committee on Monday that he would not fire Mueller without good cause. So Trump would have to fire Rosenstein and replace him with someone who would. Shades of Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre." Beyond that, it would be political suicide for him to take that course.
Stay tuned.
Ralph
Did we learn anything from the Sessions' testimony session?
That headline is a real question. The answer: No and Yes.
It was a very frustrating two plus hours of Sessions refusing to answer any question that touched on any conversation he ever had with President Trump. He insisted that he was abiding by an unwritten custom of the Justice Department not to reveal private conversations with the president.
Yet, he admitted that the president had not invoked executive privilege, which he could have done. Sessions' answer was to insist that he was not "stonewalling," as one senator accused him. "I am protecting the right of the president to assert [executive privilege] if he chooses." In other words, Trump gets to have it both ways: he doesn't have to be accused of cover-up by invoking a blanket executive privilege; but Sessions lets him pick and choose what he might permit to be said later.
There were two other problems with his testimony. (1) his verbosity, which frustrated senators whose time was limited to five minutes; and (2) his repeated use of "I don't recall" or the qualifier: "to the best of my recollection." He stoutly denied that he had any memory of a third meeting with a Russian official, but he left open just the tiniest possibility that he just didn't remember it. And he added nothing to the understanding of the firing of FBI Director James Comey or to what his "recusal" in the Russian investigation really meant.
Except that he really did. To get anything from this testimony, you have to read between the lines and look at what is not said. With so much evasiveness -- just as with so much smoke -- there's got to be something there. Being so careful not to repeat anything Trump has said makes everyone even more curious about what Trump has said.
In addition, the story about firing Comey because of his handling -- last year -- of the Clinton announcement makes no sense. First, if that was the reason, why did he wait until he had been in office for 3 months to fire him for something that he did last summer and fall? Second, it happened just as the Russian connection leaks were heating up. And also just after Comey indicated to Trump that he was not going to back off the investigation.
And third: well, duh, Trump himself told the world in a tv interview with Lester Holt that he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation. And then, on top of that, Trump told the Russian ambassador and the foreign minister, in their visit in the Oval Office, that getting rid of the "nut job" Comey had lifted a weight off him. The weight, of course, being the Russian investigation -- which Trump was joking about with his Russian visitors. And how do we know that? The Russians were recording it and put it out on their propaganda tv station. Nothing Sessions said comes even close to negating that.
And third: well, duh, Trump himself told the world in a tv interview with Lester Holt that he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation. And then, on top of that, Trump told the Russian ambassador and the foreign minister, in their visit in the Oval Office, that getting rid of the "nut job" Comey had lifted a weight off him. The weight, of course, being the Russian investigation -- which Trump was joking about with his Russian visitors. And how do we know that? The Russians were recording it and put it out on their propaganda tv station. Nothing Sessions said comes even close to negating that.
Three conclusions: (1) Sessions is a master cover-upper; but he did not change the narrative. (2) Sessions is not fit to be Attorney General. But (3) is the big one. One more coffin nail came through loud and clear: the stupifying lack of interest by anyone on the Trump team of what Russia did to our election process -- or in preventing anything they might do in the future.
Sessions -- as the Attorney General -- acknowledged that he has not had any briefing from the intelligence community about our vulnerability to future cyber attacks. Nor did he seem at all curious about what they did in our election last fall. Nor was he concerned that President Trump never even brought it up with FBI Director Comey in any of the six private conversations he had with him.
The line of questioning that came close to getting at this was asking Sessions what he talked with the Russian ambassador about when he did have that meeting in his office. Sessions has previously claimed he met with Kislyak as a member of the Armed Services Committee.
Sen. John McCain, chair of the Armed Services Committee, subtly called his bluff by asking him what he talked with the ambassador about, even giving him a list of topics relevant to their committee. Sessions leaped on one, claiming that's what they talked about; but it was not convincing. For someone following this closely, I think McCain landed a big body blow.
Sen. John McCain, chair of the Armed Services Committee, subtly called his bluff by asking him what he talked with the ambassador about, even giving him a list of topics relevant to their committee. Sessions leaped on one, claiming that's what they talked about; but it was not convincing. For someone following this closely, I think McCain landed a big body blow.
This, to me, is the most compelling question that everything seems to point to: the lack of concern in the whole Trump orbit with Russia as an enemy of democracy. And we should be asking them: Why is that?
Ralph
Tuesday, June 13, 2017
Sessions testifies Tuesday at 2:30
Attorney Jeff Sessions will be testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday, June 13th beginning at 2:30 pm. It will be broadcast live on CSPAN3.
He will be responding to James Comey's testimony from last week, in which Comey supposedly told the committee in closed session that Sessions had had a third meeting with the Russians that he still has not acknowledged. Perhaps someone will also ask him why, if he had recused himself from the Russian inquiry, he still participated in the firing of Comey.
He will be responding to James Comey's testimony from last week, in which Comey supposedly told the committee in closed session that Sessions had had a third meeting with the Russians that he still has not acknowledged. Perhaps someone will also ask him why, if he had recused himself from the Russian inquiry, he still participated in the firing of Comey.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
