Jeff Sessions is under fire today for failing to acknowledge during his confirmation that he spoke with a Russian ambassador last year, but it appears the newly confirmed attorney general has some wiggle room.
Unfortunately, Sessions’ carefully parsed rationale is the sort of thing we’ve come to expect from slick politicians like Bill Clinton. It’s not what we want to see coming from the nation’s top law enforcement official.
The skeleton of the story is as follows: Sessions met Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak twice in 2016, once socially. But then the former senator then said during his confirmation hearing in January that he, “did not have communications with the Russians.”
A number of GOP lawmakers, including Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, called on Sessions to recuse himself from an ongoing investigation into Russia’s alleged involvement in the 2016 presidential election.
On Thursday, Sessions obliged, announcing that he would recuse himself, “in the matters that deal with the Trump campaign.”
Democratic lawmakers, including Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., have taken things a step further by calling on Sessions to resign. Others have accused the AG of perjuring himself.
Let’s unpack this story.
In July 2016, Sessions spoke with Kislyak at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio, during a luncheon sponsored by the State Department and Heritage Foundation. An estimated 50 ambassadors attended the event.
Sessions not only delivered an address at the Heritage-sponsored event, but he was also introduced as “a senior national security adviser to Trump,” Politico reported, citing a senior campaign adviser.
At the conclusion of the former senator’s speech, he was approached by a gaggle of ambassadors, including Kislyak. The two spoke only briefly, according to the AG’s office.
That was the senator’s first spoken interaction with the Russian ambassador during the election.
Their second conversation took place in the senator’s office in September, according to the Washington Post.
Sessions confirmed Thursday that the meeting in Washington, D.C., indeed took place. Though the AG said he couldn’t recall the details of their conversation, he told reporters he remembered talking about the ongoing situation in Ukraine.
It’s worth noting that their second confirmed interaction took place amid reports Russian hackers had broken into the personal email accounts of Democratic National Committee staffers and into the account of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta.
This brings us to Sessions’ confirmation as Attorney General, and claims he lied under oath.
In one exchange in January, Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., asked Sessions the following question:
CNN just published a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president-elect last week, that included information that “Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump.” These documents also allegedly say “there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.” … 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 responded thusly, “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 did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it.”
Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vt., also submitted the following question in writing, “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?”
Sessions wrote a simple: “No.”
Though several Democratic lawmakers and journalists say Sessions’ responses prove he clearly perjured himself, it’s important to note the questions he answered were framed in terms of whether members of the Trump campaign communicated with the Russians.
Sessions can claim no, and still be telling the truth so long as he notes his reported interactions with the Russian ambassador occurred in his capacity as a U.S. senator, and not as a campaign surrogate.
This is exactly what the AG is doing.
“There was absolutely nothing misleading about his answer,” during the confirmation process, noting that he had over 25 conversations with ambassadors as a member of the Armed Services Committee,” Sessions’ spokeswoman, Sarah Isgur Flores, said in a statement Wednesday.
She added, “He was asked during the hearing about communications between Russia and the Trump campaign — not about meetings he took as a senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee.”
The AG himself added later that he’d, “never met with any Russian officials to discuss issues of the campaign. I have no idea what this allegation is about. It is false.”
These defenses appear to be accurate. They also don’t inspire one with a great deal of confidence in the nation’s top law enforcement officer.
Sessions answered only what was asked of him, and he responded within the specific boundaries of whether the Trump campaign communicated with the Russians during the election. But these replies come a quiet, but crucial, disclaimer that states, yeah, he actually talked to the Russian ambassador, but that he was while he was wearing his senator’s hat, and not his campaign surrogate hat. This is the sort of legalese that defined many of the Clinton years.
If you thought “It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is” was ridiculous, it seems you should also be annoyed by Sessions’ defense of “I did not have communications with the Russians,” especially now that he has confirmed the two conversations.
The AG’s answers don’t appear to be wrong, and they seem to be legally correct. Still they don’t come across as honest or forthcoming. They look like he’s being withholding, which is about the last thing one wants to see coming from a law enforcement agent.
One wonders if the same people enthusiastically defending Sessions’ very carefully parsed responses would accept a similar defense from former AG Loretta Lynch if she were found in a comparable situation.
In today’s hyperpartisan environment, and judging by how many today’s Sessions defenders responded last year to Lynch’s impromptu tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton, it seems unlikely.
Then again, if the roles were flipped, and we were talking about an AG serving under a Democratic president, this would also likely be a much smaller story.
