Sessions Discusses Comey, Russia, Trump in Senate Hearing

7:10 p.m. Senators Weigh In

Alabama senator Luther Strange, who replaced Jeff Sessions in the Senate, told reporters Tuesday evening that he thought his predecessor pulled it off: “He did really well. Attorney General Sessions answered the questions that were asked very directly—when he couldn’t, he explained why—so I hope this puts to rest a lot of the innuendo that’s been flying around, and we can move on to issues that people really are asking us about.”

Senator Marco Rubio, who serves on the committee conducting the investigation, answered questions about conflicts between Comey’s testimony and Sessions’. Comey said he told the attorney general he was not comfortable alone with Trump and Sessions did not respond; Sessions testified that he did respond. “Two people who are under oath, two people who are found to be truthful and honorable under oath give a different testimony about what exactly’s happened after the fact. I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to determine [what happened], but in the end that doesn’t go to the heart of the investigation,” he said. “It’s just a question of whether or not Comey took his complaints to the right person and whether or not Sessions responded in an appropriate way.”

Asked about another apparent contradiction—when Sessions said he would “maybe” have left the campaign if they were colluding with Russians, then later answered affirmatively—Rubio said, “I don’t have any doubt that he would have. I’ve never known Jeff Sessions to be a pro-Putin activist.”

Sessions was “as forthcoming today as Director Comey would have been had he still been FBI director” at the time of his testimony last week, Rubio told reporters.

And the most important thing we learned from Sessions’ testimony, per Rubio?

What would be a smoking gun? “Evidence of collusion,” Rubio told reporters. “We’re not done, but if you find anybody out there who has it, the committee would be interested in seeing it. Otherwise we should focus on what we should focus on, what we know did happen, which is that the Russians interfered in our elections.”

5:01 p.m. Sessions Evasive About Appearing in a Closed Session

Before today, several officials who have testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee regarding the Russia investigation have declined to answer some questions in public session, but have agreed to testify further in a closed meeting where classified information can be discussed. But when asked whether he too would be willing to elaborate further in closed session, Sessions was evasive about that, too.

“When we had Mr. Comey here, he couldn’t answer a lot of things in an open session, he agreed to go into a closed session,” Senator Joe Manchin said. “Would you be able to go into closed session, would it change your answers to us or your ability to speak more frankly on some things we’d want to know?

“Senator Manchin, I’m not sure,” Sessions replied. “The executive privilege is not waived by going in camera, or into closed session. It may be that one of the concerns is that when you have an investigation ongoing, as the special counsel does, it’s often very problematic to have persons not cooperating with that counsel, which may or may not be a factor in going into closed session.”—Andrew Egger

4:41 p.m. Sessions Continues to Walk a Fine Line on Executive Privilege

Democratic senators continue to hammer Sessions on his unwillingness to discuss the details of his private conversations with the President. Sessions has the right to withhold this information by invoking executive privilege—the right of the executive branch to withhold certain information from the courts and Congress—but seems determined not to do so explicitly.

Instead, Sessions is making use of new, more convoluted formulation: It would be inappropriate for him to answer these questions because to do so would rob the president of his right to decide whether or not to invoke executive privilege later.

“If it comes to the point where the issue is clear, the president will either assert the privilege or not, or some other privilege would be asserted, but at this point I believe it would be premature for me to deny the president a full and intelligent choice about executive privilege,” Sessions said. “That’s not necessary at this point.”

In refusing to answer the committee’s, Sessions is operating in the mold set by Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers, who frustrated the Senate Intelligence Committee with similar stonewalling on June 7.

When asked by Sen. Marco Rubio whether he had ever been asked by the White House to influence an ongoing investigation, Coats said simply that “I’m not prepared to answer your question today.”

Invoking executive privilege is rarely a good look for a presidential administration, so perhaps Sessions is simply trying to get through the hearing without using those words explicitly.

The Senate isn’t having it, though.—Andrew Egger

4:28 p.m. Buckets and Buckets of Executive Privilege.

In a tense exchange, Sen. Martin Heinrich pressed Sessions on whether he had legal grounds to withhold his private conversations with the President and accused him of “impeding this investigation.”

“My understanding of the legal standard is that you either answer the question—that’s the best outcome—or you say ‘that’s classified, can’t answer it here, I’ll answer it in closed session—that’s bucket number two—or bucket number three is to say ‘I’m invoking executive privilege,'” Heinrich said. “There is no ‘appropriateness bucket.’ It is not a legal standard. Can you tell me what are these longstanding DoJ rules that protect conversations made in the executive without invoking executive privilege?”

“Senator, I’m protecting the president’s constitutional right by not giving it away before he has a chance to view it,” Sessions responded. “And secondly, I am telling you the truth in answering your question to say that it’s the longstanding policy of the department of justice—”

Heinrich cut in: “Are these policies written down at the Department of Justice?”

“I believe they are.”

“This is the appropriateness legal standard for not answering congressional inquiries.”

“It is my judgment that it would not be appropriate for me to answer and reveal private conversations with the President when he has not had a full opportunity to review the questions and make a full decision whether or not to approve an answer,” Sessions said.

“I’m asking about your personal knowledge from this committee, which has a constitutional obligation to get to the bottom of this,” Heinrich responded. “There are two investigations here: there is a special counsel investigation, there is also a congressional investigation, and you are obstructing that congressional investigation by not answering these questions.”

Sessions appeared evasive under Heinrich’s line of questioning, which is sure to provoke a great deal of commentary in the days ahead. —Andrew Egger

4:16 p.m. Trump’s Contradictions Put the Heat on Sessions, Part II.

Jeff Sessions has repeatedly stated Tuesday that his recommendation that President Trump fire James Comey did not conflict with his recusal from the Justice Department’s Russian investigation. Pressed on this by senators on the Intelligence committee, Sessions has pointed out that his letter to Trump was based on a recommendation from the deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, that Comey had poorly handled the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server.

The problem for the administration is that this does not square with what President Trump has said publicly about his decision to fire Comey in May. As Trump told NBC News’s Lester Holt days after he fired Comey, he did so because of the “Russia thing.”

When provided this contradiction, Sessions has not provided an answer.—Michael Warren

4:05 p.m. Trump’s Contradictions Put the Heat on Sessions.

Several senators, including Diane Feinstein and Mark Warner, have grilled Sessions on the rationale behind Comey’s firing, questioning how Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein could have viewed Comey’s FBI leadership as woefully inadequate—as they asserted at the time of the firing in a memo—without ever actually raising the issue of Comey’s job performance to Comey himself.

It’s a tough question for Sessions to answer, since Trump and his staff offered different—and contradictory—explanations for Comey’s termination in the days immediately following, beginning with Rosenstein’s supposed testimony to Comey’s inadequacy and ending with Trump’s admission that Comey was fired due to his role in the Russia investigation.

In the end, Sessions’ reply—”I guess I’ll just have to let [Trump’s] words speak for himself”—is really the only explanation he could reasonably give.—Andrew Egger

3:36 p.m. Comey’s Comment About Expecting Sessions to Recuse Just Got Less Sexy

Sessions’ testimony that he recused himself as a result of previous departmental rules sheds a new light on former director Comey’s eyebrow-raising testimony last Thursday that the FBI director “expected [Sessions] would likely recuse himself from involvement in Russia-related investigations.”

Following Comey’s testimony, many commentators speculated that Comey might be implying that the FBI possessed classified evidence that Sessions had acted inappropriately. But as Chairman Burr pointed out, it is just as likely that Comey was simply aware of the same previously existing Justice Department regulation that Sessions says led him to recuse himself.

“This could explain Director Comey’s comments that he knew that there was a likelihood you would recuse yourself—because he was familiar with the same statute,” Burr asked Sessions. “I think probably so,” Sessions replied.—Andrew Egger

3:34 p.m. Warner Questions Sessions on Comey.

Mark Warner asked Jeff Sessions if he had discussed with James Comey about the FBI director’s job performance before he recommended to President Trump that Comey be fired.

“I did not,” Sessions said. Sessions said he did discuss with his deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein, before and after both officials’ confirmation, about the need for a change in leadership at the FBI. “It was something we both agreed on,” Sessions said.

Rosenstein wrote the memo recommending Comey be fired because of his handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation during 2016.—Michael Warren

3:10 p.m. Sessions Defends Himself.

In his opening statement, Attorney General Sessions strongly denied any knowledge of impropriety between the Trump campaign and Russian officials.

“Let me state this clearly: I have never met with or had any conversation with any Russians or any foreign officials concerning any type of interference with any campaign or election in the United States,” Sessions said. “Further, I have no knowledge of any such conversations by anyone connected to the Trump campaign. I was your colleague in this body for twenty years, at least some of you, and the suggestion that I participated in any collusion, that I was aware of any collusion with the Russian government, to hurt this country which I have served with honor for 35 years, or to undermine the integrity of our democratic process, is an appalling and detestable lie.”

Sessions also asserted that his decision to recuse himself was not due to allegations of improper behavior. Rather, he said, he was simply following a pre-existing departmental regulation, 28 CFR 45.2, which states that “no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation with any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution.”

“Importantly, I recused myself not because of any asserted wrongdoing or any belief that I may have been involved in any wrongdoing in the campaign, but because a Department of Justice regulation, I felt, required it,” Sessions said. “That regulation states in effect that Department employees should not participate in investigations of a campaign if they served as a campaign adviser.”—Andrew Egger

2:54 p.m. Warner Wastes No Time.

In his opening statement Mark Warner, the Democratic co-chair of the committee, reminded Sessions of his testimony at his confirmation hearing in January that the then-Alabama senator did not have any interactions with Russian officials.

Warner then explained that Sessions later confirmed that he had had two meetings with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak in 2016, after Sessions had joined the Trump campaign as an adviser. The Virginia Democrat also noted news reports that there may have been a third meeting with Kislyak at Washington’s Mayflower Hotel in April 2016. Warner said he hoped Sessions would clear up this discrepancy.—Michael Warren

2:49 pm. Burr Opens the Hearing:

North Carolina Republican Richard Burr, the co-chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, opened the hearing by stating four questions he has for Sessions.

1) What were Sessions’s interactions during the campaign and transition with Russian officials?

2) What was Sessions’s role with the Trump campaign’s foreign policy shop?

3) Why did Sessions recuse himself from the investigation into Russian interference?

4) What role, if any, did Sessions play in firing FBI director James Comey?

—Michael Warren

2:40 p.m. Still Waiting:

The hearing is running late because of a vote on SJRes 42, a motion to disapprove the sale of arms to the Kingdom of Saudia Arabia.

2:28 p.m. Graham Wants to Hear From Sessions Again:

Earlier Tuesday, Senator Lindsey Graham discussed Sessions with reporters. Graham is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and is eager to hear more from the attorney general:

—Alice B. Lloyd