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 8 Version 9
Sessions Testimony: Suggestion of Colluding With Russians an ‘Appalling’ Lie Sessions Testimony: Attorney General Refuses to Disclose Talks With Trump
(35 minutes later)
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. 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 said he would not discuss his direct conversations with Mr. Trump, saying, that “consistent with longstanding Department of Justice practice, I cannot and will not violate my duty to protect confidential communications with the president.”
• 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.”• 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.”
• 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. • Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, Mr. Burr’s Democratic counterpart, 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.
In his opening statement, Mr. Sessions said any suggestion that he participated in or was aware of any collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to undermine the democratic process “is an appalling and detestable lie.”In his opening statement, Mr. Sessions said any suggestion that he participated in or was aware of any collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to undermine the democratic process “is an appalling and detestable lie.”
Mr. Sessions also denied talking to any Russian official in the Mayflower Hotel in Washington at an event in April 2016, rejecting reports that he may have had an undisclosed meeting with the Russian ambassador, Sergey I. Kislyak, at that event. He said he recalled no private conversations with any Russian officials at that reception and “if any brief interaction occurred in passing with the Russian ambassador, I do not remember it.”Mr. Sessions also denied talking to any Russian official in the Mayflower Hotel in Washington at an event in April 2016, rejecting reports that he may have had an undisclosed meeting with the Russian ambassador, Sergey I. Kislyak, at that event. He said he recalled no private conversations with any Russian officials at that reception and “if any brief interaction occurred in passing with the Russian ambassador, I do not remember it.”
The Huffington Post reported on March 8 that Mr. Sessions and Mr. Kislyak had attended that event, at which Mr. Trump was also present, but that it was not clear whether the two had spoken. CNN has more recently reported that there continue to be questions about whether there was such a meeting. The issue matters because Mr. Sessions testified at his confirmation hearing that he did not communicate with the Russians in 2016, but it later emerged that he had at least two contacts with Mr. Kislyak; the question is whether there was a third. (Mr. Sessions has said his answer at the hearing was accurate in context.)The Huffington Post reported on March 8 that Mr. Sessions and Mr. Kislyak had attended that event, at which Mr. Trump was also present, but that it was not clear whether the two had spoken. CNN has more recently reported that there continue to be questions about whether there was such a meeting. The issue matters because Mr. Sessions testified at his confirmation hearing that he did not communicate with the Russians in 2016, but it later emerged that he had at least two contacts with Mr. Kislyak; the question is whether there was a third. (Mr. Sessions has said his answer at the hearing was accurate in context.)
Hours before, Mr. Sessions’s top deputy, Rod J. Rosenstein, testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee faced difficult questions about reports that Mr. Trump was considering firing Robert S. Mueller III as special counsel. Mr. Sessions refused to talk about direct communications with Mr. Trump, saying, “I cannot and will not violate my duty to protect the confidential communications I have with the president.”
He said that if Mr. Trump demanded that he fire Mr. Mueller, he would refuse unless there was just cause. Pressed by Mr. Warner, though, Mr. Sessions clarified that Mr. Trump had not invoked executive privilege — a constitutional doctrine that permits a president to shield his confidential communications with subordinates. Rather, he said it was a matter of longstanding Justice Department practices to keep those discussions secret.
“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.” “I’m not able to comment on conversations with high officials in the White House,” Mr. Sessions said, denying that he was “stonewalling.”
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. As the testimony unfolded, that played out in several ways. For example, at one point, Mr. Sessions refused to say whether he had discussed the F.B.I. investigation into Russian interference with the 2016 election with Mr. Trump.
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. At another, asked by Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, about the account the account of James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, that Mr. Trump had cleared the Oval Office after a Feb. 14 meeting — including asking Mr. Sessions to leave — Mr. Sessions said that would be a White House communication he could not comment on. But when Mr. Rubio asked if Mr. Sessions remembered seeing Mr. Comey stay behind, Mr. Sessions replied, “Yes.”
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. Senator Martin Heinrich, Democrat of New Mexico, criticized Mr. Sessions for refusing to answer questions about his conversations with Mr. Trump. The senator argued that since the president had not invoked executive privilege, Mr. Sessions had no legal basis for declining to provide answers, accusing him of “obstructing” the congressional 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.” Mr. Sessions said he believed it would be inappropriate to discuss confidential communications with the president that were potentially subject to executive privilege before Mr. Trump had an opportunity to decide whether to invoke it.
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. “I have consulted with senior career attorneys in the department,” Mr. Sessions said. “I believe this is consistent with my duties.”
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 offered a different account of what he said when Mr. Comey approached him following a meeting on Feb. 14 in the Oval Office with Mr. Trump.
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. Comey recounted that after a routine counterterrorism meeting, Mr. Trump cleared the room of everyone else — including Mr. Sessions — and then made comments that Mr. Comey interpreted as an improper request to drop an investigation into Michael T. Flynn, Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser. Afterward, Mr. Comey said, he “implored” Mr. Sessions never to leave him alone with the president again, but Mr. Sessions did not respond.
After Mr. Comey’s testimony last week, the Justice Department released a statement contesting Mr. Comey’s account that Mr. Sessions had merely remained silent, and Mr. Sessions himself on Tuesday said directly and under oath that he did respond.
“While he did not provide me with any of the substance of his conversation with the president, Mr. Comey expressed concern about the proper communications protocol with the White House and with the president,” Mr. Sessions said. “I responded to his comment by agreeing that the F.B.I. and Department of Justice needed to be careful to follow department policies regarding appropriate contacts with the White House.”
He added: “I was confident that Mr. Comey understood and would abide by the department’s well-established rules governing any communications with the White House about ongoing investigations. My comments encouraged him to do just that, and indeed, as I understand, he did.”
Under questioning from Mr. Warner, Mr. Sessions said he would not have anything to do with any effort, should one emerge, to fire Robert S. Mueller III as special counsel, since he is recused from the Russia investigation Mr. Mueller is leading.
“I wouldn’t think that would be appropriate for me to do,” he said.
As things stand, Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein is the acting attorney general for the purpose of overseeing the Russia investigation, and so oversees Mr. Mueller. Still, Mr. Sessions was involved in recommending the firing of Mr. Comey — a decision Mr. Trump said he made while thinking about the Russia investigation — despite being recused from it.
Mr. Sessions defended his involvement in the decision to fire Mr. Comey, explaining that his recusal did not prevent him from having a say in his department’s management decisions.
“It is absurd, frankly, to suggest that a recusal from a single specific investigation would render an attorney general unable to manage the leadership of the various Department of Justice law enforcement components that conduct thousands of investigations,” he said.
He argued that he recused himself not because of “any sort of wrongdoing,” but in accordance with department regulations regarding his involvement with Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign.
“This is the reason I recused myself,” he said, holding up a copy of the rule. “I felt I was required to under the rules of the Department of Justice.”
But Mr. Sessions made it clear that would not stop him from defending himself.
“I recused myself from any investigation into the campaign for president, but I did not recuse myself from defending my honor against scurrilous and false accusations,” he said.
Mr. Sessions sent a stand-in to the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Rosenstein, 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 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.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 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.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, 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?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 “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.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 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.”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 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.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. Rosenstein demurred when pressed by Senator Brian Schatz, Democrat of Hawaii, to describe the scope and limits of Mr. Sessions’s 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. 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.”
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.”
Later Tuesday, the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, also voiced support for Mr. Mueller.
“I have a lot of confidence in Bob Mueller,” he told reporters. “I think it was a good choice.”