Sessions to Congress: Didn’t Lie About Russia, Considering Special Counsel for Uranium One
Has faced heat from both sides of the aisle.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions is currently facing the House Judiciary Committee over the DOJ’s decision to review the Uranium One deal and the Clinton Foundation. Of course, the subject has strayed and others have asked about special counsel on FBI’s handling of failed Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s email investigation.
One of the biggest revelations so far is that Sessions now remembers a meeting he had with an advisor on President Donald Trump’s campaign about Russian contacts. Sessions previously testified “he knew of no such contacts with the campaign.”
Russia
President Donald Trump’s former campaign foreign policy advisors Carter Page and George Papadopoulos, have testified that they told Sessions, who served as Trump’s campaign, national security advisor, about contacts with Russians. From Fox News:
“I do now recall the March 2016 meeting at Trump Hotel that Mr. Papadopoulos attended, but I have no clear recollection of the details of what he said during that meeting,” Sessions said. “After reading his account, and to the best of my recollection, I believe that I wanted to make clear to him that he was not authorized to represent the campaign with the Russian government, or any other foreign government for that matter.
“But I did not recall this event, which occurred 18 months before my testimony of a few weeks ago, and would gladly have reported it.”
He told the same committee last month he did not know of any contact between Russian and members of the campaign:
“I did not, and I’m not aware of anyone else that did, and I don’t believe it happened,” Sessions said in his former testimony.
Hillary & FBI Investigation
Republicans have pushed the DOJ to appoint a special counsel to investigate the FBI’s handling of its investigation into Hillary’s email scandal.
Sessions told the committee that the DOJ is looking into and must “study what the facts are” before it decides to take that step. From The Washington Examiner:
“I would say ‘looks like’ is not enough basis to appoint a special counsel,” Sessions told Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, on Tuesday at the House Judiciary Committee when asked why the Justice Department hasn’t appointed a special counsel when it “looks like” there was wrongdoing.
Sessions have told federal prosecutors to investigate if the DOJ needs a special counsel. Jordan pressed Sessions on what needs to happen in order for the DOJ to do so:
“It would take a factual basis that meets the standard of the appointment of a special counsel,” the attorney general said.
Sessions noted that a special counsel has only been appointed twice before — the first for the government’s raid on the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, Texas, in 1993, and the second for Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
Sessions said both of those were “pretty special, factual situations.”
“You can have your idea, but sometimes we have to study what the facts are and to evaluate whether it meets the standard that requires a special counsel,” Sessions told Jordan.
Roy Moore
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) asked Sessions about Alabama senate candidate Roy Moore, who has had numerous women accuse him of sexual assault when they were teenagers and he was in his 30s. From Politico:
Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Tuesday that he has “no reason to doubt” the women who have accused Alabama GOP Senate candidate Roy Moore of sexual misconduct.
“I have no reason to doubt these young women,” he told the House Judiciary Committee.
Moore is running to take over Sessions’ seat. Sessions told the committee “he has been advised to play no role in any potential investigations surrounding the Alabama campaign because he knows many of the people involved.”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“Sessions (has) told federal prosecutors to investigate if the DOJ needs a special counsel.”
I’m unclear as to why the top law enforcement officer in the USA, who has hundreds of federal prosecutors working for him, all of which have the authority to investigate and bring charges, requires a special prosecutor.
What’s so special about a special prosecutor. The Justice Dept. needs to act like a department of justice, and stop this swamp circling charade.
If it cannot, then maybe the wrong man is at the helm.
The wrong man is at the helm.
I think Sessions is a decent guy for a swamp denizen. The problem is that he’s still a swamp denizen, and still behaves like a Senator from team collegiality, rather than the chief prosecutor of the United States of America. He just doesn’t have the spine to head the DOJ.
it would be better for the (R) that Moore tells the electorate to vote fpr him and that he will IMMEADIATLY resign so that another special election or Guv can name a (R) replacement.
for the (D)’s to win by default and make it harder for POTUS to govern would be a tragedy of epic proportions.
we need to repair the Obama years and having another (D) will make that near impossible.
Why do you think you will get anything but swamp supporters, when all the swamp has to do is round up half a dozen accusers and make charges that can’t be disproven?
But the charges are easily disproven. Especially the latter ones from yesterday.
Moore has but to substantiate what he said about not knowing the young lady, not being a patron of the diner, and not even knowing about it. This isn’t hard to do. Bring forth witnesses who patronized other places at the same time, testifying that Moore was present THERE. Prove Moore was driving a recent-model car at the time. Prove that Moore’s signature is a forgery.
OTOH, I expect that there will be people who come forth to say he did, he was, and bullshit. They will be men and women.
Are you kidding? It is incredibly hard to DISPROVE these allegations, because of the elapsed time and the vague “dates” involved. Unless Moore was at a very important function at the alleged “time” of these encounters, he likely would have no recollection of where he was or what he was doing. And, it is a pretty safe bet that, unless the same criteria applied, no one else would remember where he was or what he was doing. People remember important or unusual things, not mundane things. How many people are gonig to remember that yu were eating dinner, alone, in Burger King on a specific time and date 30+ years ago?
This is the perfect attack, as the time element almost always precludes finding anything, other than your word, to prove you were not involved. That is why our system of law requires that a plaintiff prove, by at least a preponderance of the evidence, that their claim is true. To demand that a person PROVE that an unsubstantiated charge is a lie is ludicrous.
“Unless Moore was at a very important function at the alleged “time” of these encounters, he likely would have no recollection of where he was or what he was doing.”
And yet…he’s very, very sure of several things that are no less difficult to recall in time.
I can tell you places I used to eat frequently in the 60s and 70s. I can tell you the parts of town I was familiar with. I can tell you who I used to hang out with. Where are Moore’s witnesses?
I was dating during the the 60s and into the early 70s, and I can recall pretty much every girl I took out, and there were quite a few. Moore is just so…hazy about his dating a decade later.
But you’re just flapping around with vacant apologetics.
If Moore was a regular at the diner, it will out.
I also think a lot more will drop. But it may all be a done deal by now.
With a bit of effort you may be able to produce witnesses to corroborate that you frequented the diners you say you did. Suppose I were to allege that, at the same time, you were also a regular at a different diner, one not on your list. How would you prove you weren’t?
I’ll tell you what. Try and find anyone, other than you your wife or husband, who can swear that you were at a particular place on September 4, 1980 at 9pm. Then compound that problem by not having a specific date and time from your accuser [as exists in most of these cases]. Good luck.
How many people are accused of a crime and their only alibi is that they were home alone eating a TV dinner and watching the news? Who is going to be able to corroborate that? Now, it may be slightly easier to show that you were probably NOT in a particular place at a particular time, if the venue is small and you are well known.
As tro YOU remembering something, that means nothing, unless you can prove it. If you remember that you were watching Bonanza and eating a Stouffer’s chicken dinner at home and someone else says that you were robbing the local liquor store at the same time, who is right? And, how do you prove your “memory”?
But Milhouse and Stupid, we’re not talking about a specific time and place.
We’re talking about a pattern and practice.
See…???
Where are Ye Ole Hickory’s witnesses…??? Haven’t seen or heard tell, have we…???
Where are Old Hickory’s witnesses? Right where they always were: all the people who were there and said they didn’t remember it that way. Of course, Moore hasn’t had a year to hunt them up and get their stories to all line up.
“Right where they always were: all the people who were there and said they didn’t remember it that way.”
You have a great future as a fantasist.
Name them. Or cite to a statement by them.
Your’s is just a fond dream. Reality bites.
“Of course, Moore hasn’t had a year to hunt them up and get their stories to all line up.”
Really, one of your most remarkably STUPID statements, and one that shouts that you think Moore is guilty.
If they existed, there’d be no need to “get their stories to all line up”. And it would take a YEAR…!!! Wow.
rags, here is where you are playing right into the hands of the other side.
This type of thing is always about specifics. So, far we have had no specific time or date for these alleged incidents. So, it is almost impossible to produce witnesses to refute Moore’s presence with any of the two accusers who have made any claim of improper or criminal behavior. A 30 year old man dating a 17-18 year old woman, in a public setting, is hardly a crime and is not necessarily improper in many locales.
Now let’s take a look at a pattern and practice of dating hig school girls when you are around 30 yoa. This, as I have pointed out, is NOT illegal, even today. Unless the older man attempts to take advantage of the girl, there is nothing to see here. Now, it might indicate that the man has some deep seated problem, but it might be something as simple as a lack of maturity or self esteem. So, the only real problem is if an older man attempts, or succeeds, on gaining sexual favors from a minor. And we only have to claims of that happening. So, exactly what pattern of heinous practice are we looking at here?
As you say, if these incidents actually happened as claimed, then the claimants should be able to produce SOME corroborative evidence. So far all that we have is the word of these claimants and “supporting” statements from people who are able to provide no details or were “told” by the claimant years, or decades, after the incident allegedly occurred. See the pattern here? In none of instances was the behavior, if it occurred, deemed serious enough to bring it to the attention of ANY authority figure [Mom, Dad, local police, the DA etc.]. In fact, it was not until 30+ years later, when Moore is likely to be elected to the US Senate, during one of the most tumultuous political periods in our history, that these “heinous” incidents are “reported”.
See the pattern and practices here?
You mean like Weinstein, Spacy, etc. and etc.
Child sexual assault is a crime or crimes that, like murder, perversely involve their own protections for the criminal.
With murder, you kill the most important potential witness.
With child sex crimes, there are a witches brew of powerful psychological factors that come into play. Often, those are enhanced by the criminal’s own statement to his/her victim, as was alleged here from Moore. They all work to make revelation of the crime MUCH less likely at any time proximate to its commission.
See the pattern?
But, again, and for the last time, I maintain that an innocent party in these circumstances can find ways to defend against a false accusation.
I have zero, nada, zilch, Ø respect for Sessions. When he was nominated, I hoped that he would be a good AG, but that has not happened. He is letting the DOJ run him rather than the other way around. The DOJ (i.e., FBI) failure to respond in a timely manner to the questions about the “dossier” and its roll in the Russian collusion investigation are offensive to me. That’s the kind of crap we got from Øbama; I don’t expect it in this administration.
And this garbage about the DOJ being independent is nothing more than swamp gas. EVERYONE has to answer to someone. The DOJ does whatever it wants with no accountability and little transparency. They are above the law, and Sessions is just going along to get along.
27 leaks and we’re still investigating? Here’s what you do. You call all your direct reports into your office and you tell them they have three days to provide you with the names of the leakers. If you don’t get 27 names, you very publically fire every one of them. If that doesn’t work, you go down to the next layer, and so on. Sessions is allowing the deep state to control the agenda at DOJ. He’s a spineless wretch.
Sorry Jeff, I too was an Eagle Scout and “A Scout is Trustworthy.” You, sir have lost your way, and you are exhibiting as much LEADERSHIP as a bowl of tofu.
Damn shame.
A disastrous performance.
Weak, timid, hesitant, and unprepared all describe Sessions’ demeanor, when the opposite was required.
Sessions is Trump’s largest mistake to date.
We are officially in a constitutional crisis.
“Weak, timid, hesitant, and unprepared…”
Those were the strong points.
Was anything productive accomplished? I caught the last few minutes on livestream and Rep. Collins GA. was asking Sessions based on his years of experience would he agree that some kind of convict job training and early release program to decrease recidivism would be a good idea. That was not what I thought Sessions was called to testify. I really thought he was called there to explain why he has been sitting on his hands so long.
How the hell does a joke document funded by the Clintons & the DNC claiming Trump hired two Russian hookers to piss on a hotel bed once slept on by Obama rise to the level of evidence needed for a special prosecutor and all we know about Hillary and her henchmen not quite to the level required for a special prosecutor?
All of this rises to the level of an AG, I think it is about time Trump finds one.
I don’t understand what is going on.
Neither did Sessions…
Old “Duck And Cover” is at it again. The man has proven to be nothing more than an Establishment stooge. It is time for The Trumpster to fire him and appoint someone who actually will do the job. After all, as Session has essentially recused himself from any political investigations, firing will not affect any of them.
I think you are stuck with Sessions for the time being as President Trump most likely wouldn’t be able to fire sessions and appoint a new AG who would start looking into everything Sessions should be looking to because the RINOs would defect and vote with the Democrats.
With sessions in place they know no one will rock the boat. With a new AG there are no such undertakings that that person wouldn’t get stuck in and start cleaning the corruption up in the political system.
And when the RINO’s defect to the Democrats, as they are inevitably going to do anyway, they will have outed themselves irreversibly. They are already the enemy. We are just helping them maintain their cover.
Here’s what’s going to happen:
Sessions is backed up by the GOPe. He will not be removed until WE, THE CITIZENS remove a bunch of GOPe Senators. In other words, he will remain in place at least until 2018.
Over at HOT AIR, as noted in the “Blogs I Read” box on the right, Sessions just said that he was NOT going to appoint a Special Prosecutor for Hillary, just because his party wanted him to.
Yep.
Sessions said both of those were “pretty special, factual situations.” (Branch Davidian and Russian meddling)
So factual was Russian meddling that Dianne Feinstein, among others, said there was no evidence of meddling.
Factual.
Meanwhile, we have a plethora of evidence against The Cough and we get……crickets.
All sessions has to do is change parties to make the circle complete.
We need to get rid of this bum, and quick.
What a pathetic performance before congress. The guy is in way over his head.
The only reason to refuse to look is you are afraid of what you might find.