AG Sessions Most Un-Excellent Day

Like a punching bag, Attorney General Jeff Sessions took hit after hit yesterday, ultimately holding a press conference to announce he would recuse himself from any FBI investigation into Russia's alleged attempts to influence the election. Several Democrats are not satisfied with that. Here's who is calling for AG Jeff Sessions to resign:

The ACLU is calling for a perjury investigation.

Last night, Sessions seemed to change his tune a bit. [More...]

In an interview with Tucker Carlson, he moved from a flat denial of speaking to Russia's ambassador Sergey Kislyak about the election to saying he doesn't "recall any discussion of the campaign in any significant way" during talks with Kislyak.

The day before, his response was:

I never met with any Russian officials to discuss issues of the campaign. I have no idea what this allegation is about. It is false.”

Is there anyone in the Trump campaign who didn't meet with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak? We've now got Kushner together with Flynn, Sessions, Carter Page (warning video link) and J.D. Gordon. I'm surprised Rudy Giuliani isn't in the mix yet.

The Ambassador gets around. He was at the RNC, at Trump's inauguration, at Trump's congressional speech this week, and at Donald Trump's first foreign policy speech on the campaign trail in April, 2016, where he sat in the front row. (Sessions also attended, but there's no indication as of now they spoke to each other.)

Here's a video of Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, speaking on Russia-U.S. Relations on November 10, 2016 (two days after the election) at the Stanford Institute for International Studies. At the beginning, the moderator says demand for attendance was so high they had to change rooms.

The Wall St. Journal reported Wednesday that AG Jeff Sessions' contacts with Russia while serving as an advisor to the Trump campaign were the subject of an investigation last summer that may not yet be resolved.

I don't think his response to Al Franken is the only comment at issue during his confirmation process. In addition to his oral testimony, Senators submitted written questions to Sessions. Sen. Patrick Leahy asked Sessions(p. 26 of 38):

e. 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? (emphasis in original)

[Sessions'] RESPONSE: No.

As to the Al Franken answer, to put it in context, here's the entire q and a between Franken and Sessions on Russia at the 1/10/17 confirmation hearing (via Lexis.com)

FRANKEN: Senator, last Friday the Director of National Intelligence, we covered this a little, representing 16 agencies released a declassified intelligence report stating in quote, "We assessed Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election," unquote. And yet despite the consensus among our intelligence agencies, President-elect Trump has remained persistently skeptical during the first presidential debate. He wandered a lot whether the responsible party could be China or, quote, somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds.

Last month he called reports of Russian hacking quote, "ridiculous," and quote "another excuse," for the democratic loss. He said quote, "it could be somebody sitting on -- in a bed some place." Again, I mean, they have no idea. And even after the release of the declassified report, the president has really yet to acknowledge Russia's role in the hacking. You said earlier that you accept the FBI's conclusion. To my mind, it's absolutely extraordinary to see a president-elect so publicly refuting and without evidence, so far as I can tell, the assessment of our intelligence agencies. Why do you think president-elect Trump has been so unwilling to acknowledge Russian involvement in the hacking?

SESSIONS: I did mean to indicate I respect the FBI and I respect the fact that if they give a conclusion they believe is accurate, but I'm not able to comment on the president-elect's comments about it.

FRANKEN: OK. CNN has just published a story and I'm telling you this about a news story that's just been published. I'm not expecting you to know whether or not it's true or not. But CNN just published a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president -elect last week that included information that quote, "Russian operatives claimed to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump." These documents also allegedly say quote, "There was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump's surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government." (My emphasis)

Now, again, I'm telling you this as it's coming out, so you know. But if it's true, it's obviously extremely serious and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do? (my emphasis)

SESSIONS: Senator Franken, I'm not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I didn't have -- did not have communications with the Russians, and I'm unable to comment on it. (my emphasis)

FRANKEN: Very well. Without divulging sensitive information, do you know about this or know what compromising personal and financial information the Russians claim to have?

SESSIONS: Senator Franken, allegations get made about candidates all the time and they've been made about president-elect Trump a lot sometimes. Most of them, virtually all of them have been proven to be exaggerated and untrue. I would just say to you that I have no information about this matter. I have not been in on the classified briefings and I'm not a member of the intelligence committee, and I'm just not able to give you any comment on it at this time.

FRANKEN: OK. Totally fair.

The transcript is 202 pages, and there's many more references to Russia. Sen. Whitehouse asked Sessions about Russia (although not his contacts) in this exchange:

WHITEHOUSE: As you know, the United States has retaliated against Russia for its interference with the 2016 elections. In Europe, Baltic States, Germany and Italy have raised concerns of Russia meddling in their country's elections.

I know this has been touched on before, but I want to make sure it's clear. Will the Department of Justice and the FBI under your administration be allowed to continue to investigate the Russian connection, even if it leads to the Trump campaign and Trump interests and associates? (my emphasis)

And can you assure us that in any conflict between the political interests of the president and the interests of justice, you will follow the interests of justice, even if your duties require the investigation and even prosecution of the president, his family and associates? (my emphasis)

SESSIONS: Well, Senator, why ask? If the laws violated and they can be prosecuted then of course you'll have to handle that in an appropriate way. (my emphasis)

I would say that they problem may turn out be, as in the Chinese hacking of our -- hundreds of thousands of -- maybe millions of records, has to be handled at a political level. And I do think it's appropriate for a nation who feels that they've been hacked and that information has been improperly used to retaliate against those actions.

Shorter version: Evasive and non-responsive.

The hearing also showed the prescience of Sen. Dick Durbin, questioning former Bush AG, Michael Mukasey, who was testifying on behalf of Sessions:

General Mukasey, during the course of this hearing, I sense that there is an evolving context relative to Russia and the involvement of Russia in the election. Many of the questions we've posed to Senator Sessions related to his values, his votes, and now I think there's a growing concern of a question that you've addressed yourself, too.

I'm going to ask you to speak to again, about his role if he becomes attorney general vis-a-vis the White House, the president. We now have allegations, unconfirmed, relative to Russian activity relating to the president-elect. As I said, alleged, unconfirmed, and Director Comey of the FBI saying at this point he would not talk about whether there was an ongoing investigation relative to Russia's role in the election. So can you give me some clarity?

[Response not responsive, he tries again]

....DURBIN: Can I ask you another question related to that? Investigations undertaken by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, what authority does the attorney general have over the commencement or the conclusion of those investigations?

MUKASEY: The attorney general, theoretically, is -- is -- The FBI director reports to the attorney general. I say theoretically because there're [sic]-- occasionally one gets the idea that the attorney general is independent. If we had more time, I could tell you the story, but it will have to wait until (inaudible) meeting. The FBI director works for the attorney general. [<my emphasis]

DURBIN: So, I guess my question, it -- Repeatedly Senator Sessions has called for attorneys general to recuse themselves rather than participate in investigations with political ramifications -- most recently called for Attorney General Lynch to appoint a special counsel for Hillary Clinton in an op-ed that he wrote on November 5 of last year.

I am trying to work this through. I asked him pointedly whether he would recuse himself if there were any accusations against the president-elect once he becomes president or other people involved in the Trump campaign, and he basically answered me that he was going to take this on a case-by-case basis.

If he has the authority and power to stop an investigation at the FBI, is that what you're telling me?


DURBIN: So, if there is an investigation underway, he could stop it if he wished?

MUKASEY: Yes. (my emphasis)

Durbin also questioned Sessions directly about potential recusal over Russia:

DURBIN: This morning, before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Director Comey of the FBI was testifying on the question of investigating the Russian involvement in this last election. And he was asked if there was any ongoing investigation about contacts between Moscow and the Russians and any presidential campaigns. And he refused to answer, said he wasn't going to discuss any ongoing investigations publicly.

I would like to ask you a question related to recusal. You stated earlier today that you had made the decision, and you haven't given us real background on it, but made the decision that you would recuse yourself from any prosecutions involving Hillary Clinton or the Clinton campaign and e-mails. And then I understand -- I wasn't present but Senator Blumenthal asked you for some other hypotheticals as to whether you'd recuse yourself on an emolument question or some other things, and you said you'd take it on a case-by-case basis.

What if, hypothetical, same as Hillary Clinton, we are dealing with an investigation that involves the Trump campaign or anyone in the Trump campaign, would you recuse yourself as attorney general from that prosecution? (my emphasis)

SESSIONS: My response to the -- my recusal issue was because I'd made public comments about it that could be construed as having an opinion on the final judgment that would have to be rendered. I don't think I made any comments on this issue that go to that, but I would review it and try to do the right thing as to whether or not it should stay within the jurisdiction of the attorney general or not.

DURBIN: It would strike me that this is an obvious case for a special prosecutor if it involves a campaign leading to a candidate who selected you as the attorney general. Wouldn't an abundance of caution suggest that you wouldn't want any questions raised about your integrity in that type of prosecution?

SESSIONS: Senator Durbin, I think it would be incumbent upon anybody who's holding the office of attorney general at that time to carefully think his way through that, to seek the advice and to follow the normal or appropriate special prosecutor standards. And so I would intend to do that. But I have not expressed an opinion on the merits of those issues, to my knowledge.

Sessions said yesterday that his discussions with the Russian ambassador were about "normal things", including the Ukraine, although he couldn't remember specifics.

Trump denied he was responsible for the change in the RNC platform on the Ukraine. So did Paul Manafort. But now his national security at the time, JD Gordon, who attended a meeting with the Russian Ambassador at the RNC tells Jim Acosta that Trump ordered it and it had been discussed at an earlier meeting attended and led by Jeff Sessions at Trump's unfinished Washington Hotel.

So at the time of the RNC, Trump said he had nothing to do with the change of platform on the Ukraine, but now J.D. Gordon, his National Security Advisor at the time, who attended a meeting with the Ambassador, said Trump told them that's what he wanted back in March, at a meeting led by Sessons.

Sessions said yesterday he has no idea why the Russian Ambassador would want to discuss the Ukraine with him. Really?

More: Vox explores how Sessions' views on Russia changed after joining Trump's campaign, and the WSJ reports Sessions paid for his trip to the RNC where he met the Russian ambassador with campaign funds.

Even Donald Trump Jr. is taking heat today, for his paid speech in Paris in October, 2016 with a pro-Russian think tank that was holding talks on Syria. The group is led by a French billionaire named Fabien Baussart, with "strong financial ties" to Russia. The talks were billed a means of getting Russia and the U.S. to agree on Syria. (It's hard to imagine anyone more supremely unqualified to discuss Russia, the U.S. and Syria than Donald Trump, Jr.) Here's a photo of him at the talks from the group's website I saved in October, when I was thinking of writing about it and decided it was too absurd.

< Wednesday Night Open Thread: Season of the Witch | GW Bush is Welcomed Back >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Did you see today's press conference, Jeralyn? (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Mar 03, 2017 at 03:28:45 AM EST
    Had you been advising Attorney General Sessions as his personal counsel, I very seriously doubt that presser would've ever taken place. Knowing that your client had at the very least misstated facts to the Senate Judiciary Committee, if not committing outright perjury, you likely would have insisted that he issue only a short written statement recusing himself from any ongoing or future DOJ investigations about Russia, and then shut up about everything else.

    Yet there was Sessions babbling away today, insisting one moment that he couldn't recall at all whether he and Ambassador Kislyak has discussed the presidential campaign during their Sept. 216 meeting, only to then remember in very vivid detail their conversation in that same meeting about an earlier trip to Russia he took back in 1991. The inherent contradiction in that display of selective memory was striking.

    Watching that amazing press conference, I've come to the conclusion that Sessions is a 20W bulb screwed into a 100W socket. For a lawyer, he's not very bright. He ought to resign.


    He's your typical (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 03, 2017 at 07:48:27 AM EST
    neoconfederate and they usually are not very bright.

    They really do think there are two sets of rules (none / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 04, 2017 at 06:38:39 PM EST
    Yes, one (none / 0) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Mar 04, 2017 at 06:40:16 PM EST
    set of rules for white people and another set of rules for everybody else. Since the Russians are white they would be fine to consort with in the neoconfederate mentality.

    this really (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by linea on Sat Mar 04, 2017 at 06:49:58 PM EST
    makes no sense.

    republicans do not base their war-mongering and geo-political policies on an inclusiveness of "white people" and you seem to misunderstand the meaning of neo-confederate.

    Neo-Confederate is a term used by some to describe the views of various groups and individuals who portray the Confederate States of America and its actions in the American Civil War in a positive light.

    One of those views (none / 0) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 04, 2017 at 07:09:23 PM EST
    Is that there is one set of rules for white people and a separate set of rules for brown people because brown people aren't quite human. That's why brown people commit more crime and crave strange food like watermelon and kimchi. And you don't want to mix your white genes with brown people genes. White genes are superior and to mix them with brown genes is an abomination.

    who exactly? (none / 0) (#27)
    by linea on Sat Mar 04, 2017 at 07:31:30 PM EST
    the anti-kimchi separatists in their fortified compound in montana?

    Who are anti-kimchi? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Mar 04, 2017 at 07:41:59 PM EST
    I googled and found nothing but references to food. Those people in Montana who want to live only among other white people would probably be a group under the white nationalists called white separatists. Neo confederates believe in the ideas of the confederacy the inferiority of people who have darker skins. They are part of the white nationalist movement too.

    Read about the assorted groups here


    I had a neo-confederate here tell (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 04, 2017 at 09:35:30 PM EST
    Me as she was taking her husband's clothing in to be altered by a Korean woman shop owner that ,"She could smell the kimchi already." I didn't even know what to say, I just stared, particularly since my white family has seconds on kimchi...but okay a$$hole

    you are welcome (none / 0) (#29)
    by linea on Sat Mar 04, 2017 at 08:11:35 PM EST
    to invent your own definition of that term or link to others who have.  i read the entire wiki article and the term neo-confederate clearly refers to "whitewashing the confederacy" or an apologist for the confederacy.

    undoubtedly, there are neo-confederates who are extremist christianists and-or racists but that's not the definition of the term neo-confederate (also see Sons of Confederate Veterans).


    You apparently (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Mar 04, 2017 at 08:28:25 PM EST
    did not read the link. Neo confederate means holding the confederate ideals in a modern world.

    SPLC definition:

    he term neo-Confederacy is used to describe twentieth and twenty-first century revivals of pro-Confederate sentiment in the United States. Strongly nativist and advocating measures to end immigration, neo-Confederacy claims to pursue Christianity and heritage and other supposedly fundamental values that modern Americans are seen to have abandoned.

    Neo-Confederacy also incorporates advocacy of traditional gender roles, is hostile towards democracy, strongly opposes homosexuality, and exhibits an understanding of race that favors segregation and suggests white supremacy. In many cases, neo-Confederates are openly secessionist.

    i did read the link (none / 0) (#31)
    by linea on Sat Mar 04, 2017 at 08:47:57 PM EST
    as i stated, you or splc or anybody else is free to express their opinion of neo-confederates but the term apparently refers to an apologist for the confederacy (and i have already noted that there are likely racists and extremist christianists among that group).

    you are welcome (none / 0) (#32)
    by linea on Sat Mar 04, 2017 at 08:52:35 PM EST
    to hold the opinion that "all neo-confederates (apologists for the confederacy) are racists" if you like. i wont correct your opinion as i have never met a neo-conservative myself.

    Because they are racist...as hell (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 04, 2017 at 09:39:39 PM EST
    I also had a yellow dog dixiecrat down here tell me he didn't want to vote for the n-word, but the n-word was the Democrat so he guessed he was going to have to vote for the n-word.

    It doesn't occur to any of them that I'm so shocked I'm speechless. It is simply assumed that I'm okay with what they are saying.


    neo conservatives (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 06:37:07 AM EST
    are a completely different animal than neo confederate

    it's obvious (none / 0) (#37)
    by linea on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 01:27:17 PM EST
    i meant neo-confederate. i dont chase your posts looking for small unimportant errors.

    Dim (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by FlJoe on Fri Mar 03, 2017 at 08:28:26 AM EST
    bulb indeed, my understanding is that rule number one when testifying is to never volunteer any information.

    IMO Franken, after getting the allegations into the record, proceeded to ask a rather softball hypothetical question. Instead of answering with a generic answer such as " If presented with evidence of criminal activity, I would investigate and prosecute if warranted", he bizarrely decided that he needed to assert his own "innocence" by making an untruthful categorical statement that had nothing to do with the question at hand.

    Total unforced error, that he should have clarified within hours instead of weeks.


    The mysterious (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by FlJoe on Sat Mar 04, 2017 at 07:01:33 AM EST
    Another(kinda sorta)adviser(kinda sorta)meets with the Russian Ambassador at the convention.
    Carter page, adviser>informal-advisor>ex-informal nobody> never was, crawls out from under his rock., I watched it last night and I was mesmerized, think Anderson Cooper dropped into a Monty Python skit. Worst liar ever, think Daffy Duck as a weasel.

    Also, IMO, quite the loon,

    Carter Page, an early foreign-policy adviser to Donald Trump's presidential campaign, wrote a letter to the Department of Justice on February 12 alleging Hillary Clinton's campaign committed "human rights abuses" and "hate crimes" against him during the 2016 election.

    "The actions by the Clinton regime and their associates may be among the most extreme examples of human rights violations observed during any election in US history since Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was similarly targeted for his anti-war views in the 1960s," Page wrote in a letter addressed to "Members of the Civil Rights Division's Voting Section" of the Department of Justice.

    It wasn't That complicated a question (none / 0) (#5)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 03, 2017 at 09:12:09 AM EST
    unless Beauregard drifted off in the middle of it and was executing nigra prisoners at Fort Pillow in his imagination while Franken was talking..

    Now unbelievably, Sessions defenders seem to be trying to revise history and actually misrepresent what the original question was.


    I would think (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Mar 03, 2017 at 09:07:05 AM EST
    that the subject of any conversations Beauregard had with any Russians is irrelevant. The fact the he lied about having conversations is the crime here. Hell maybe we can clean out this cabinet in the first six months of captain cheeto's administration.

    It may be both, (none / 0) (#16)
    by KeysDan on Sat Mar 04, 2017 at 10:37:34 AM EST
    the crime, and the cover-up of same.

    He was bright enough (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by smott on Fri Mar 03, 2017 at 09:30:29 AM EST
    To use terms like "never my intent"  yesterday so he's clearly aware of and likely hoping to avoid perjury charges.
    He will never be charged w this Congress.
    ACLU might try?

    His crediblity (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 03, 2017 at 09:53:16 AM EST
    is shot to the moon. He'll sit there and twist in the wind and be the butt of jokes until either an election ends his term or Trump decides to get rid of him.

    The obvious question is (none / 0) (#7)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 03, 2017 at 09:48:26 AM EST
    why did he immediately go into hyperdefensive mode and start answering questions that were never asked?

    The kind of reaction that has been a classic indicator of a guilty conscience in every crime novel written in the last 100 years.

    These guys aren't as slick and polished as Nixon's henchmen were.


    I believe it is called (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by smott on Fri Mar 03, 2017 at 12:57:25 PM EST
    The Guilty Response , often a non-sequitur to the actual question.

    I sense that there are way more shoes to drop.

    The IC knows that the GOP does not have the cojones to place country over party. They will not investigate anything until the public, even some of the GOP Base, turns against them.

    So there will be more leaks I suspect.

    Not a big fan of Schindler but his Tweet a couple weeks ago re IC "going nuclear" I think is happeneing, albeit more slowly than some of us would like.

    He links a lot to Louise Mencsh. Haven't figured her out yet. A lot of real cloak and dagger stuff, but some of it very well researched. The Russian planes following around Trump 1 for Tarmac rendezvous is especially intriguing. Trump prefers couriers after all, no traceable transactions. Hah! After all the grief Bubba got for meeting Lynch on the Tarmac, it would be such a hoot if Trump is really getting million dollar loans from Russian Mobsters via courier, plane to plane. Hilarious.

    Adam Khan of Hacking the Bird fame has a ridiculous long list of Russian contacts in the Trump orbit. raises the notion that Trump casinos do not exist to make money. Just to launder it. A huge favor for his Russian mob pals.


    Correct (none / 0) (#17)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Mar 04, 2017 at 10:39:42 AM EST
    The question that was not asked (3.00 / 2) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 03, 2017 at 09:25:00 PM EST
    Now, again, I'm telling you this as it's coming out, so you know. But if it's true, it's obviously extremely serious and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?

    SESSIONS: Senator Franken, I'm not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I didn't have - did not have communications with the Russians, and I'm unable to comment on it.

    What I find remarkable is that Franken didn't ask Sessions about any contacts he himself might have had with the Russians. He asked him what he would do if Trump officials had such contacts. So, Sessions wasn't being pressed about his own contacts and deny having any, he volunteered that he didn't "have communications with the Russians."


    There is also the phrase Sessions used, "communications with the Russians," which it seems is pretty clearly meant to denote the sort of nefarious coordination that Franken is getting out. All of this suggests that the most reasonable reading is that Sessions wasn't thinking of his two contacts with the Russian ambassador -- one of which was very informal in a large group -- in this context. (I'm not an expert on Russian intelligence operations, but it is hard to believe that the Kremlin sends its ambassador to the U.S. to brief  U.S. senators about them and coordinate how to carry them out.)


    Of course on that last, given that Obama said on what he thought was a dead, to the Russian President:

    President Medvedev: "Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you..."

    President Obama: "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."

    President Medvedev: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir, and I stand with you."


    And that the Ambassador visited the WH some 32 times....you have to wonder what the deal was and if it was consummated?

    Sorry Jim (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 03, 2017 at 09:47:06 PM EST
    but the apologia is not going to work. There's a difference between having an official meeting and sneaking up the back stairs and meeting in secret with the Russian ambassador. If Sessions had run what he was doing through the state department he wouldn't be in the trouble he's now in.

    Sessions lied but he's not the only one. It's now come out that DeVos, Pruitt, Mnuchin and Price also lied to congress here

    Sessions lied about meeting the Russians. However apparently there is a transcript of Sessions' discussion with the Russians. So we'll probably find out soon what the conversation was between Sessions and the Russians and Tillerson apparently had a secret meeting perhaps too.


    On the record (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Mar 03, 2017 at 11:12:18 PM EST
    And that the Ambassador visited the WH some 32 times....you have to wonder what the deal was and if it was consummated?

    So because Mr. Obama acted in his official capacity as president to have a meeting in which every word was transcribed, it's cool for a senator to use campaign funds to meet off the record with an ambassador from another country, and lie about doing that?

    Tough crowd.  This guy could shoot the Pope and you would admire his marksmanship.

    The use of campaign funds to pay for the meeting show that it was not conducted for government business.  The State Department is supposed to be informed about any such official meetings, but this was on the downlow.  Why do you suppose Mr. Sessions is expensing his meetings with Russians as part of the campaign?  What are the Russians doing for the campaign that makes this a business meeting?

    The fact that he didn't remember anything about a recent meeting, but can describe in detail meetings that took place a decade ago strongly suggests that this guy is senile and needs to go on the basis of sheer incompetence, since absolute lack of ethics has never stopped him.


    jim stay on topic (none / 0) (#14)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 04, 2017 at 12:42:55 AM EST
    you don't pick the topics here. Your example has nothing to do with what is being discussed.

    Bingo (none / 0) (#18)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Mar 04, 2017 at 10:41:22 AM EST
    We have a winner

    No you don't (none / 0) (#19)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 04, 2017 at 11:42:35 AM EST
    In fact, silly, baseless conspiracy theories - while popular with Trump and his sycophants - should be roundly mocked.  But your sudden appreciation for context, as opposed to your usual attempts at willfully ignoring it ("He said what he said!") is funny.

    Robert Costa, WaPO, (none / 0) (#20)
    by KeysDan on Sat Mar 04, 2017 at 04:05:19 PM EST
    tweeted that Trump left the White House Friday in a fury , fuming about Sessions' recusal telling his aides that Sessions should not have recused himself.

    This apparent outburst should have warned his aides that Trump needed supervision this weekend (usually, Kushner and Ivanka are not around Friday and Saturday for religious reasons, and it has been reported that Bannon and Preibus stayed behind in DC).

      Then came the early morning tweet storm, from accusing Obama of having Trump Tower tapped, McCarthyism, Sad, Sick, Sacred Elections.... And, a sparring with Arnold over a reality TV show.

     Trump, in his assertion that Obama put a "tapp" on him, may be his acknowledgment that a judge granted a FISA warrant, and, with it, probable cause, and as Representative Ted Lieu(D.CA) suggests, that could mean big trouble.

     Did wonder how Sessions meeting with the Russian Ambassador became known (and, probably, a transcript available), as well as the meeting of Kushner and Flynn at Trump Tower.

    Corey Lewandowski claims (none / 0) (#35)
    by Towanda on Sat Mar 04, 2017 at 11:45:12 PM EST
    that Sessions was tapped in his Senate office.

    I think that Corey didn't read the stories closely.


    Jeffrey Toobin (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Mar 04, 2017 at 06:08:06 PM EST
    in the New Yorker is stating that Sessions can be prosecuted by the Justice Department.

    Actually (none / 0) (#25)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Mar 04, 2017 at 07:08:29 PM EST
    He didn't.
    He stated there is way for the Justice Department to conduct a investigation, to determine additional facts.
    But that won't happen either