Attorney General Jeff Sessions Lied Under Oath

[BoSoxGal]

He told Congress he didn't communicate with Russian officials during Trump's campaign.

He did; he lied under oath.

RESIGNATION IMMEDIATELY!

https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/ ... aign%3Famp

[BoSoxGal]

[Lord Jim]

This is a really good example of what I was talking about earlier when I said that Sessions didn't strike me as the sharpest tool on the tree...

Franken didn't even ask him about whether he'd had contact with Russian officials...

He just volunteered that he hadn't (along with confirming that he was an official surrogate for the Trump campaign)...

Here's a guy trained as a lawyer, who spent years as a federal prosecutor, and more years as a US Senator grilling others in Senate hearings, not having the sense to only confine himself to answering the question asked without volunteering additional information...

How could he not know better then that?

He's trying to parse his answer now by claiming that he spoke with the ambassador in his capacity as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and not as representative of the Trump campaign but when one looks at when these conversations took place, that's pretty weak...

Unless something really damning comes out about the substance of these conversations, (and since the FBI is now investigating this, we'll see what happens) I doubt that this will be enough to create the political heat needed to cause him to resign, but this is certainly going to ramp up the pressure (not just from Democrats but also some Republicans) to get Sessions to recuse himself from any role in the Putingate investigations...

ETA:

Actually I'm very glad this has come out because it will help to keep public focus on this and greatly increase the likelihood of public congressional hearings and the appointment of an Independent Counsel...

Trump must be mad as a wet hen to have this story breaking now, stepping on and drowning out the favorable press he got for his speech...

[Burning Petard]

Why should he resign? He only lied to congress, he did not lie to the vice president.

nail gate

[Big RR]

Jim--I have to agree--I 5think he's pulling a Bill Clinton here, and like Clinton he should have realized this could only come back to haunt him. whether he lied or not depends in the exact question, but it is not a good idea to parse things that closely when you are being looked at for AG.

However, in any event, it does show why we now will have to engage a special prosecutor as, at the very least, it casts serious doubts on his behavior and how he might conduct any investigation.

[Lord Jim]

I think that from the standpoint of the integrity of the investigation, recusal is probably preferable to having him resign...

If he resigned he might very well be replaced by somebody lower profile but just as inclined to suppress a thorough investigation....it would probably be tougher to make the case for recusal against someone like that, who didn't have the direct connections that Sessions does...

With the spotlight now on him, it's probably better to leave him there but unable to influence the investigation...

I think as fast as this is moving, recusal will come sooner rather than later:

Top Republicans call on Sessions to recuse himself from Russia investigation

Top Republicans said Thursday that Attorney General Jeff Sessions should recuse himself from federal investigations of whether Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy said during an appearance on MSNBC that Sessions should bow out to maintain “the trust of the American people.”

Minutes later, House Oversight and Government Reform committee chairman Jason Chaffetz joined McCarthy’s call, tweeting that “AG Sessions should clarify his testimony and recuse himself.”

The calls from two of the House’s most prominent Republicans follow revelations that Sessions met with the Russian ambassador during election season. Under oath in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee for his confirmation hearing in January, Sessions had said that he had not met with any Russian officials.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpos ... a3f67bd7d9

[BoSoxGal]

Why should he resign? He only lied to congress, he did not lie to the vice president.

nail gate

Lying to Congress is a federal crime, and he's now the top LEO of the land - but then integrity is pretty much already absent from this administration.

[Lord Jim]

I should probably have posted this in Laffs:

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova on Thursday called the report a "shame," adding that the mainstream media in the United States is attempting to mislead public opinion.

"What is going on in the Western -- particularly in the U.S. -- media, is just some manifestation of media vandalism," Zakharova said. "First of all, it's an attempt of total disinformation."

Dmitry Peskov, Russian President Vladimir Putin's spokesman, said the reports suggesting Kislyak could be a spy or recruiter should be ignored.

"These are once again anonymous media speculations which constantly work up this situation," Peskov told reporters. "The only thing that can be offered to all in this situation is simply not to respond to these anonymous, unfounded false stories, and be guided only by official statements."

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2017/03/ ... 488462986/

[Lord Jim]

Here's a good article on the standards regarding recusal for DOJ (It was written on Feb. 20th, before the latest revelations dropped Sessions himself in the soup, making the case even stronger):

Does Sessions Have to Recuse Himself on Russia Investigations?

The Russian Connection gravitational vortex continues to pull at the new administration, fed almost daily by new allegations and reporting. Reuters reported over the weekend on three separate FBI probes into Russian interference in the election, including the counterintelligence investigation potentially implicating the Trump campaign. Not to be outdone, yesterday, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal all weighed in with additional reports of questionable activities and ties between Trump associates and Russia.

One legal issue looming in the background is the appropriate role of Attorney General Jeff Sessions in ongoing investigations.

Sessions served as the chairman of the Trump campaign’s national security advisory committee. His close affiliation with Trump and the campaign, and the potential conflicts of interest that creates, has led members of Congress and the public to call for his recusal.

The Michael Flynn investigation serves to highlight the Attorney General’s conflicts issue. The Washington Post reported late last week that former-National Security Adviser and top military adviser to the Trump campaign Michael Flynn may have lied to the FBI during an investigation of his calls with the Russian ambassador.

Although it isn’t clear Flynn was intentionally misleading the FBI, and the FBI is not expected to recommend charges, the Department of Justice will have to decide whether to bring charges under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which makes it a felony to lie about a fact material to the course of a federal investigation.

Meanwhile, President Trump’s assertion at last week’s press conference that he has directed the Attorney General to investigate administration leaks potentially worsens the perception that the Attorney General lacks independence.

All this raises the stakes of and pressure for recusal on investigations related to President Trump and Russia generally. So what are the Attorney General’s legal recusal obligations, and how might those obligations be enforced?


The Law of Recusal

Under 28 U.S.C. § 528, the Attorney General “shall promulgate rules and regulations which require the disqualification of any officer or employee of the Department of Justice . . . from participation in a particular investigation or prosecution if such participation may result in a personal, financial, or political conflict of interest, or the appearance thereof.” So the statute requires recusal where an actual or apparent conflict exists, but leaves it to the Attorney General to promulgate regulations with more detailed criteria for assessing such conflicts. And as with many conflict of interest provisions, the law makes clear that even an appearance of such a conflict is legally problematic.

The operative DOJ regulation is at 28 C.F.R. § 45.2 (a section titled “Disqualification arising from personal or political relationship”). Under the regulation, “no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with” either “any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution” or “any person or organization which he knows has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution.”[Gee, that would seem to fit like a glove...]

The regulation defines “political relationship” as “a close identification with an elected official, a candidate (whether or not successful) for elective, public office, a political party, or a campaign organization, arising from service as a principal adviser thereto or a principal official thereof.” So as a principal adviser to Donald Trump’s campaign, Sessions seems to fall squarely into the provision, even if you ignore the very real possibility that Sessions himself might have an interest in the outcome.

What’s critical is that the ethics laws here protect faith in our institutions by centering on even the appearance of conflicts. The analysis is not whether one thinks Attorney General Sessions personally can compartmentalize his past allegiance to the Trump campaign and dispassionately conduct the investigation.

The regulation’s exemption provision requires a finding not only that the employee can be impartial, but also that “the employee’s participation would not create an appearance of a conflict of interest likely to affect the public perception of the integrity of the investigation or prosecution.”

Whatever one thinks of Sessions’s personal probity, it seems clear that his involvement in an investigation of the Trump campaign might cause a reasonable observer to question the investigation’s integrity. During his confirmation hearings, Sessions himself acknowledged the importance of the mere appearance of conflict when he indicated that he would recuse himself from any investigations into Secretary Clinton’s email because comments that he made during the campaign “could place [his] objectivity in question.”

All that said, this is a legal obligation with no practical legal enforcement mechanism. Agency ethics regulations are enforced by means of disciplinary proceedings at DOJ. As the head of the agency, Sessions isn’t likely to discipline himself for violating the regulation. And the regulation in question specifies that it “pertains to agency management and is not intended to create rights enforceable by private individuals and organizations.” So nobody outside is either.

Furthermore, these aren’t criminal laws. The primary criminal ethics law implicating recusal is 18 U.S.C. § 208, which prohibits an official’s participating in a matter in which the individual (or someone with whom the individual has a particular relationship) has a financial interest. The charge here isn’t that Sessions has a financial interest in the outcome, but rather that he has a personal and political conflict.

Political, Not Legal, Enforcement

As with many obligations, the real constraints here aren’t statutory or regulatory. They’re political.

We’ve seen the political enforcement mechanisms at work in the recent past—in Attorney General Lynch’s airport tarmac imbroglio. After the airport tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton, Lynch faced enormous political pressure for recusal from the Clinton email investigation. While Lynch didn’t fully recuse herself, she indicated that “she would accept whatever recommendations career prosecutors and the F.B.I. director made about whether to bring charges in the case.” She publicly bound herself to the recommendations of others, acknowledging that her involvement in the case “would raise questions of a conflict of interest.”

Lynch’s own handling of this matter was far from best practices. But note that she also did not fall so clearly into DOJ’s regulatory mandate as Sessions now does. The Sessions ties to the Trump campaign are far more substantial than the airport tarmac meeting. And in ordinary times, you’d expect to see a full-scale recusal from all aspects of any investigation relating in any way to the Trump campaign.

But these aren’t ordinary times and this isn’t an ordinary administration. While the administration has shown itself susceptible to political pressure in the Flynn firing, the bar seems to be high.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/does-sessio ... stigations

So the take-away here is that while the guidelines regarding recusal clearly and (by any fair objective standard irrefutably ) apply to Sessions based on the facts and the language of the guidelines, it's political pressure that will decide what he actually does.

[Lord Jim]

Like I said, sooner rather than later...

Jeff Sessions Recuses Himself From Russia Inquiry

WASHINGTON — Attorney General Jeff Sessions, facing a chorus of criticism over his contacts with the Russian ambassador, recused himself Thursday from any current or future investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. His conversations with the ambassador, Sergey I. Kislyak, came amid suspected Russian hacking directed at Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Mr. Sessions said he made the decision after meeting with senior career officials at the Justice Department. He said he would not take part in any investigations “related in any way to the campaigns for president of the United States.”

He also strongly denied that any of his conversations with Russian officials were related to the presidential campaign. And he said he did not intend to deceive the Senate when he said he had no such meetings with Russian officials.

The remarks by Mr. Sessions came not long after President Trump on Thursday expressed his support for Mr. Sessions and said he should not recuse himself from the investigation. Mr. Sessions was a key adviser and surrogate for Mr. Trump’s campaign.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/02/us/p ... crats.html

[MajGenl.Meade]

And he said he did not intend to deceive the Senate when he said he had no such meetings with Russian officials.

Sessions "recusing" himself is much like Zuma declaring that he never asked anyone to misappropriate billions of rand to build him a huge retirement complex (and town) at Nkandla. Why, they just did it behind his back. And there was that "turbulent priest" thing from an earlier time.

Power corrupts more than just the powerful individdle, do it not?

[ex-khobar Andy]

I do look forward to hearing an apology from McConnell to that persistent woman who was somewhat disparaging of a fellow senator. 'Nevertheless, I am sorry' would be so nice to hear from him.

[BoSoxGal]

As if THAT would EVER happen!

[Guinevere]

Sessions "did not have 'sex' with that Russian."

His press conference was tortured. His parsing was positively Clinton-esque (Bill, not HRC). His appearance on Fox even worse.

I'm betting he resigns before the end of next week.

[Big RR]

But I did hear Putin said, after all he's done for us, I'd gladly put the knee pads on myself.

[rubato]

Intimacy with the Russians appears almost to be a requirement to be called to the Trump WH.


yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

I'm betting he resigns before the end of next week.

I think another shoe would have to drop for that to happen...

Except...

Trump may decide to can him because he's pissed that Sessions dared to recuse himself after The Great One said he shouldn't...

[rubato]

I do look forward to hearing an apology from McConnell to that persistent woman who was somewhat disparaging of a fellow senator. 'Nevertheless, I am sorry' would be so nice to hear from him.

Coretta Scott King has proven a better judge of character than the GOP senate, certainly.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... .html?_r=0

How Senators Voted on Jeff Sessions
By THE NEW YORK TIMES FEB. 8, 2017
The Senate voted to confirm Jeff Sessions as attorney general. Here’s a full list of Senate confirmation votes.
51 votes will ensure confirmation
Yes
52
No
47
Present: 1
Voted “yes”
D Joe Manchin III W.Va.
R Dean Heller Nev.
R Jerry Moran Kan.
R Lisa Murkowski Alaska
R John Barrasso Wyo.
R Rob Portman Ohio
R Bill Cassidy La.
R James Lankford Okla.
R Ron Johnson Wis.
R Mike Lee Utah
R Steve Daines Mont.
R Roy Blunt Mo.
R Tom Cotton Ark.
R John Boozman Ark.
R Rand Paul Ky.
R Deb Fischer Neb.
R Dan Sullivan Alaska
R Jim Risch Idaho
R Michael D. Crapo Idaho
R John Hoeven N.D.
R Shelley Moore Capito W.Va.
R Orrin G. Hatch Utah
R Bob Corker Tenn.
R John Thune S.D.
R Michael B. Enzi Wyo.
R Richard M. Burr N.C.
R James M. Inhofe Okla.
R Jeff Flake Ariz.
R Todd Young Ind.
R John McCain Ariz.
R Roger Wicker Miss.
R Patrick J. Toomey Pa.
R Thom Tillis N.C.
R Richard C. Shelby Ala.
R Tim Scott S.C.
R Ben Sasse Neb.
R Marco Rubio Fla.
R Michael Rounds S.D.
R Pat Roberts Kan.
R David Perdue Ga.
R Mitch McConnell Ky.
R John Kennedy La.
R Johnny Isakson Ga.
R Charles E. Grassley Iowa
R Lindsey Graham S.C.
R Cory Gardner Colo.
R Joni Ernst Iowa
R Ted Cruz Tex.
R John Cornyn Tex.
R Susan Collins Me.
R Thad Cochran Miss.
R Lamar Alexander Tenn.
Voted “no”
D Mazie K. Hirono Hawaii
D Brian Schatz Hawaii
D Sherrod Brown Ohio
D Robert Menendez N.J.
D Sheldon Whitehouse R.I.
D Bill Nelson Fla.
D Dianne Feinstein Calif.
D Claire McCaskill Mo.
D Kirsten Gillibrand N.Y.
D Richard Blumenthal Conn.
D Kamala Harris Calif.
D Joe Donnelly Ind.
D Gary Peters Mich.
D Mark Warner Va.
D Edward J. Markey Mass.
D Martin Heinrich N.M.
D Cory Booker N.J.
D Michael Bennet Colo.
D Christopher S. Murphy Conn.
D Tom Udall N.M.
D Bob Casey Pa.
D Chris Coons Del.
D Heidi Heitkamp N.D.
D Debbie Stabenow Mich.
D Chuck Schumer N.Y.
D Jeanne Shaheen N.H.
D Benjamin L. Cardin Md.
D Tammy Duckworth Ill.
D Ron Wyden Ore.
D Elizabeth Warren Mass.
D Chris Van Hollen Md.
D Jon Tester Mont.
D Jack Reed R.I.
D Patty Murray Wash.
D Jeff Merkley Ore.
D Patrick J. Leahy Vt.
D Amy Klobuchar Minn.
D Tim Kaine Va.
D Maggie Hassan N.H.
D Al Franken Minn.
D Richard J. Durbin Ill.
D Catherine Cortez Masto Nev.
D Thomas R. Carper Del.
D Maria Cantwell Wash.
D Tammy Baldwin Wis.
I Angus King Me.
I Bernie Sanders Vt.
“Present” votes
R Jeff Sessions Ala.



yrs,
rubato

[Econoline]

I said I trusted Sessions
The way I always do.
How was I to know
He was with the Russians too?

I was partying in Moscow,
I watched some hookers piss.
Send lawyers, guns, and money,
Vlad, get me out of this!

[Guinevere]

I'm betting he resigns before the end of next week.

I think another shoe would have to drop for that to happen...

Except...

Trump may decide to can him because he's pissed that Sessions dared to recuse himself after The Great One said he shouldn't...

Senator Chris Coons of Delaware just told Andrea Mitchell that he believes the FBI has transcripts of members of the Trump campaign at the "highest levels" colluding with Russian officials. Mitchell responded, "Wow, that's news."

So yes, more shoes are going to drop. It could look like the floor of Imelda Marcos' closet.