This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/us/politics/jeff-sessions-testimony.html

The article has changed 16 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 6 Version 7
Sessions Testimony: Former Colleagues to Grill Attorney General Sessions Testimony: Suggestion of Colluding With Russians an ‘Appalling’ Lie
(35 minutes later)
Hours before Attorney General Jeff Sessions was to begin his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee starting at 2:30 p.m. eastern, his name was invoked. And not in a way he would like. Attorney General Jeff Sessions started his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee with an emotional appeal to his former colleagues. He called any suggestion that he colluded with Russians during the election an “appalling” lie. “Please colleagues, hear me on this,” he said.
• Mr. Sessions quickly came under criticism from his former Democratic colleagues in the Senate for sending Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, to testify before the Senate Appropriations Committee on Tuesday morning. One senator accused Mr. Sessions of giving “false testimony” to his former colleagues. • Senator Richard M. Burr, Republican of North Carolina and the chairman of the committee, said Mr. Sessions’s testimony was his opportunity to “separate fact from fiction.”
• And Mr. Rosenstein was soon the subject of vigorous questions about reports that President Trump was considering dismissing the special counsel in the inquiry, Robert S. Mueller III. • Mr. Burr’s Democratic counterpart, Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, quickly challenged Mr. Sessions’s previous denial of contact with the Russians. “The fact is that you did indeed have interactions with Russian government officials during the course of the campaign,” Mr. Warner said.
• Mr. Rosenstein told senators he would not carry out any order from the president to fire Mr. Muller unless there were good cause to do so. • Mr. Rosenstein faced vigorous questioning about reports that President Trump was considering dismissing the special counsel in the Russia inquiry, Robert S. Mueller III.
• Mr. Rosenstein told senators he would not carry out any order from the president to fire Mr. Mueller unless there were good cause to do so.
Track our briefing here throughout the day for the latest updates and live video once the hearing begins.Track our briefing here throughout the day for the latest updates and live video once the hearing begins.
Mr. Rosenstein began his testimony parrying questions from Democrats both about Mr. Sessions and about the role of Mr. Mueller. He said that if Mr. Trump demanded that he fire Mr. Mueller, he would refuse unless there was just cause. Mr. Rosenstein began his testimony parrying questions from Democrats about both Mr. Sessions and the role of Mr. Mueller. He said that if Mr. Trump demanded that he fire Mr. Mueller, he would refuse unless there was just cause.
“I’m not going to follow any orders unless I believe that those are lawful and appropriate orders,” Mr. Rosenstein said, adding: “If there were good cause, I would consider. If there were not good cause, it would not matter what anybody says.” “I’m not going to follow any orders unless I believe that those are lawful and appropriate orders,” Mr. Rosenstein said. “If there were good cause, I would consider. If there were not good cause, it would not matter what anybody says.”
Mr. Rosenstein made his remarks in response to questions from several senators after a friend of Mr. Trump said on Monday that he was considering whether to fire Mr. Mueller. Mr. Rosenstein appointed Mr. Mueller as special counsel and is overseeing his investigation because Mr. Sessions has recused himself. Mr. Rosenstein made his remarks in response to questions from several senators after a friend of Mr. Trump’s said on Monday that he was considering whether to fire Mr. Mueller. Mr. Rosenstein appointed Mr. Mueller as special counsel and is overseeing his investigation because Mr. Sessions has recused himself.
At the hearing, Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Democrat of New Hampshire, noted that the Justice Department regulations for special counsels place restrictions on firing Mr. Mueller: only the attorney general — here, Mr. Rosenstein — may do so, and only for good cause, say, if Mr. Mueller committed misconduct or violated department rules. At the hearing, Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Democrat of New Hampshire, noted that the Justice Department regulations for special counsels placed restrictions on firing Mr. Mueller: Only the attorney general — here, Mr. Rosenstein — may do so, and only for good cause, say, if Mr. Mueller committed misconduct or violated department rules.
Ms. Shaheen asked Mr. Rosenstein whether he had seen any sign that Mr. Mueller had committed some breach that would constitute good cause for firing him.Ms. Shaheen asked Mr. Rosenstein whether he had seen any sign that Mr. Mueller had committed some breach that would constitute good cause for firing him.
“No, I have not,” Mr. Rosenstein replied, adding: “You have my assurance that we are going to faithfully follow that regulation, and Director Mueller is going to have the full independence he needs to conduct that investigation.”“No, I have not,” Mr. Rosenstein replied, adding: “You have my assurance that we are going to faithfully follow that regulation, and Director Mueller is going to have the full independence he needs to conduct that investigation.”
Soon after, Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, asked him what he would do if Mr. Trump ordered him to fire Mr. Mueller, leading to his response that he would not do so unless there were good cause in accordance with the regulation.Soon after, Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, asked him what he would do if Mr. Trump ordered him to fire Mr. Mueller, leading to his response that he would not do so unless there were good cause in accordance with the regulation.
Mr. Rosenstein did not say what he would do if Mr. Trump first ordered the department to rescind the regulation, which would permit Mr. Mueller to be fired for any reason.Mr. Rosenstein did not say what he would do if Mr. Trump first ordered the department to rescind the regulation, which would permit Mr. Mueller to be fired for any reason.
Mr. Sessions may have sent a stand-in to the Appropriations Committee, but that did not stop Democrats there from venting their frustrations at him.Mr. Sessions may have sent a stand-in to the Appropriations Committee, but that did not stop Democrats there from venting their frustrations at him.
Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the committee’s top Democrat, criticized Mr. Sessions for opting to appear in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee rather than at his planned appearance to make the case for the Justice Department’s budget, saying attorneys general do not “cower” when called upon by Congress. Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the committee’s top Democrat, criticized Mr. Sessions for opting to testify in front of the Intelligence Committee instead of appearing as planned to make the case for the Justice Department’s budget, saying attorneys general do not “cower” when called upon by Congress.
Mr. Leahy said he has his own questions about the role of Mr. Sessions in the firing of Mr. Comey, as well as what he called “false testimony” by Mr. Sessions about his interactions with Russian officials during his confirmation hearing — questions he could not ask Mr. Rosenstein. Mr. Leahy said he had questions about the role of Mr. Sessions in the firing of Mr. Comey, as well as what he called “false testimony” by Mr. Sessions about his interactions with Russian officials during his confirmation hearing — questions he could not ask Mr. Rosenstein.
“I won’t mince words,” he said to Mr. Rosenstein, “You’re not the witness we were supposed to hear from today. You’re not the witness who should be behind that table. That responsibility lies with the attorney general of the United States.” “I won’t mince words,” he said to Mr. Rosenstein. “You’re not the witness we were supposed to hear from today. You’re not the witness who should be behind that table. That responsibility lies with the attorney general of the United States.”
Even as Mr. Rosenstein vowed to “defend the integrity” of the special counsel investigation, including by refusing any order to fire Mr. Mueller without good cause, Senator Chris Van Hollen Jr., Democrat of Maryland, spotted a potential issue that has no clear answer: What if President Trump fired Mr. Rosenstein and then worked down through the Justice Department until he found someone willing to do it? Even as Mr. Rosenstein vowed to “defend the integrity” of the special counsel investigation, including by refusing any order to fire Mr. Mueller without good cause, Senator Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland, spotted a potential issue that has no clear answer: What if Mr. Trump fired Mr. Rosenstein and then worked down through the Justice Department until he found someone willing to do it?
That possibility has historical precedent: in 1974’s “Saturday Night Massacre,” President Richard M. Nixon fired the attorney general and his deputy because they were unwilling to remove the Watergate special prosecutor, stopping only when the next-in-line official, then-Solicitor General Robert Bork, was willing to do what the president wanted. That possibility has historical precedent: In “Saturday Night Massacre” in 1973, President Richard M. Nixon fired the attorney general and his deputy because they were unwilling to remove the Watergate special prosecutor, stopping only when the official next in line, Solicitor General Robert Bork, was willing to do what the president wanted.
If something like that happened again, Mr. Van Hollen asked, and Mr. Mueller believed he had not been fired for any legitimate good cause, what protection did the Justice Department regulation provide? Would the fired special counsel have recourse, for example, to contest his firing in the courts?If something like that happened again, Mr. Van Hollen asked, and Mr. Mueller believed he had not been fired for any legitimate good cause, what protection did the Justice Department regulation provide? Would the fired special counsel have recourse, for example, to contest his firing in the courts?
Mr. Rosenstein said he hoped there was never a need to answer what would happen next if someone at the Justice Department did not adhere to the rules. Comparing it to a law school hypothetical, he said, “I would be reluctant to answer it without doing some research first.” Mr. Rosenstein said he hoped there would never be a need to answer what would happen next if someone at the Justice Department did not adhere to the rules. Comparing it to a law school hypothetical, he said, “I would be reluctant to answer it without doing some research first.”
But no one at the hearing yet has brought up what would happen if the White House directed the Justice Department to change the rules first — by revoking the special counsel regulations — so that it Mr. Mueller could then be fired for any reason, just as ordinary senior Justice Department officials can. But no one at the hearing brought up what would happen if the White House directed the Justice Department to change the rules first — by revoking the special counsel regulations — so that Mr. Mueller could then be fired for any reason, just as ordinary senior Justice Department officials can.
Mr. Sessions will be questioned about any connections he may have to the Russia investigation. Mr. Rosenstein demurred when pressed by Senator Brian Schatz, Democrat of Hawaii, to describe the scope and limits of Mr. Sessions’s recusal.
Mr. Comey told the committee that after a Feb. 14 meeting, Mr. Trump cleared the Oval Office of other officials — including Mr. Sessions — and then made private comments that Mr. Comey interpreted as an improper order to drop a criminal investigation into Michael T. Flynn, Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser. Mr. Comey implored Mr. Sessions never to leave him alone again with the president, but Mr. Sessions did not reply.
In a statement issued after the testimony, the Justice Department denied that account on behalf of Mr. Sessions.
“The attorney general was not silent; he responded to this comment by saying that the F.B.I. and Department of Justice needed to be careful about following appropriate policies regarding contacts with the White House,” the statement said.
Mr. Comey testified that he did not tell Mr. Sessions specifically about what Mr. Trump had said because he and other F.B.I. officials expected that Mr. Sessions would soon have to recuse himself, based on classified facts “that would make his continued engagement in a Russia-related investigation problematic.”
That led officials to believe that “he was not going to be in contact with Russia-related matters much longer,” Mr. Comey said.
Mr. Comey saved the details of that matter for testimony he delivered behind closed doors last week. CNN has reported that it appeared to center on intercepted “Russian-to-Russian conversations” suggesting that Mr. Sessions may have had a third undisclosed contact with the Russian ambassador at an April 2016 reception at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington.
The Huffington Post first reported on March 8 that Mr. Sessions and the ambassador, Sergey I. Kislyak, had attended that event, at which Mr. Trump was also present, but the Justice Department has said Mr. Sessions did not speak with the ambassador then. Two weeks ago, after CNN resurfaced the idea that there may have been a third meeting, Sarah Isgur Flores, a spokeswoman for Mr. Sessions, reiterated a denial.
“The facts haven’t changed; the then-senator did not have any private or side conversations with any Russian officials at the Mayflower Hotel,” she said in a statement.
A Democratic senator asked Mr. Comey last week about whether Mr. Sessions was adhering to his recusal from matters related to the Russia investigation in light of the fact that when Mr. Trump fired Mr. Comey, the White House released a memo from Mr. Sessions recommending his removal.
The memo did not mention Russia, but Mr. Trump separately told NBC News that he was thinking about the Russia investigation when he decided to fire Mr. Comey.
“If, as the president said, I was fired because of the Russia investigation, why was the attorney general involved in that chain?” Mr. Comey testified on Thursday. “I don’t know.”
Mr. Rosenstein demurred when pressed by Senator Brian Schatz, Democrat of Hawaii, to describe the scope and limits of Mr. Sessions’ recusal.
Mr. Schatz noted that when Mr. Sessions announced his recusal in early March, he phrased it in terms of investigations that touched on the 2016 presidential campaigns. But the senator asked where the boundaries of that were, suggesting that it was murky whether potential counterintelligence matters about Russia that did not involve the campaign, or potential criminal matters like obstruction of justice allegations, fell into it.Mr. Schatz noted that when Mr. Sessions announced his recusal in early March, he phrased it in terms of investigations that touched on the 2016 presidential campaigns. But the senator asked where the boundaries of that were, suggesting that it was murky whether potential counterintelligence matters about Russia that did not involve the campaign, or potential criminal matters like obstruction of justice allegations, fell into it.
Mr. Rosenstein suggested that he would control what matters reached Mr. Sessions because of how the Justice Department hierarchy works: matters go through the Office of the Deputy Attorney General before getting to the Office of the Attorney General. But he refused to detail the scope and limits of Mr. Sessions’ recusal beyond what has already been said, saying he had a responsibility not to talk publicly about what investigations were focusing on. Mr. Rosenstein suggested that he would control what issue reached Mr. Sessions because of how the Justice Department hierarchy works: Matters go through the Office of the Deputy Attorney General before getting to the Office of the Attorney General. But he refused to detail the scope and limits of Mr. Sessions’s recusal beyond what had already been said, saying he had a responsibility not to talk publicly about what investigations were focusing on.
“I know what we’re investigating,” Mr. Rosenstein said of Mr. Sessions. “He does not.”“I know what we’re investigating,” Mr. Rosenstein said of Mr. Sessions. “He does not.”
Speaker Paul D. Ryan said on Tuesday that Mr. Mueller should be allowed to continue his work.Speaker Paul D. Ryan said on Tuesday that Mr. Mueller should be allowed to continue his work.
“I think the best thing to do is to let Robert Mueller do his job,” Mr. Ryan said at a news conference. “I think the best vindication for the president is to let this investigation go on independently and thoroughly.”“I think the best thing to do is to let Robert Mueller do his job,” Mr. Ryan said at a news conference. “I think the best vindication for the president is to let this investigation go on independently and thoroughly.”