Attorney General Jeff Sessions spent nearly three hours on Tuesday fending off accusations of collusion with Russian officials during the 2016 election, and the idea that he went too far by recommending James Comey’s firing as FBI director.
Going into the hearing, Democrats were ready to attack Sessions for possibly having an unreported meeting with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak, and for recommending Comey’s dismissal even after recusing himself from all issues related to the FBI’s Russia probe.
But Sessions offered a tough defense, and started by sharply dismissing the deeper Democratic suspicion: that he was colluding with Russia during and after the election.
“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,” he said in his opening statement.
From there, Sessions dismissed the idea that his rumored third meeting with Kislyak ever happened at the Mayflower Hotel in April 2016. He said Kislyak appeared to be at the same event that Sessions was attending, but said he had no recollection of a one-on-one meeting with the ambassador.
“I did not have any private meetings nor do I recall any conversations with any Russian officials at the Mayflower Hotel,” he said. “I did not attend any meetings at that event. Prior to the speech, I attended a reception with my staff that included at least two dozen people and President Trump.”
He tersely defended himself from Democratic prodding that there was some still-secret reason why Sessions recused himself from the Russia probe. Democrats pushed him to explain what other reason there might be, but Sessions only reiterated that his recusal was “not because of any asserted wrongdoing” but because of a Department of Justice regulation that says department “employees should not take part in investigations of a campaign that they served as a campaign adviser.”
“I did not recuse myself from defending my honor from scurrilous and false accusations,” Sessions added.
Sessions also proved scrappy, and at one point uncharacteristically shot back at Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who asked once again what secret reasons might exist for his recusal.
“Why don’t you tell me?” Sessions fired back. “There are none, Sen. Wyden. There are none. I can tell you that for absolutely certainty.”
“This is a secret innuendo being leaked out there about me, and I don’t appreciate it, and I tried to give my best and truthful answers to any committee I’ve appeared before,” Sessions added.
Sessions also used his testimony to rebut the Democratic argument that because of his recusal, he should not have made any recommendation to fire Comey. But here, Sessions argued that recusal from the Russia probe is not a recusal from his job of managing the Justice Department, where the FBI is housed.
“It is absurd, frankly, to suggest that a recusal from a single specific investigation would render an attorney general unable to manage the leadership” of various parts of the Justice Department, he said.
Sessions told lawmakers he spoke with both Trump and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein earlier this year about the need for new FBI leadership.
“It was something we both agreed to, that a fresh start at the FBI was a good thing,” Sessions explained, adding that he agreed with Rosenstein’s assessment that Comey mishandled the bureau’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails.
Sessions’ answers left Democrats with few toeholds, but one they tried to exploit was his refusal to elaborate on his conversations with Trump about Comey. He told Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., that he was not claiming executive privilege by avoiding the questions, but simply following a “longstanding [Justice Department] policy.”
“I’m not able to discuss or confirm or deny the nature of private conversations that I may have had with the president on this subject or others,” Sessions said when asked by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., about whether he spoke with Trump about Comey’s firing.
“I know how this will be discussed, but that’s the rule that’s been long adhered to by Department of Justice, as you know, Sen. Feinstein,” he added.
Democrats also pressed him on whether Sessions has had any briefing at all about Russia, in an apparent attempt to trip him up and get him to say he is somehow involved in the probe. But Sessions insisted that all he knows about the Russian meddling in the 2016 election is from “what I’ve read in the paper.”
“Do you believe the Russians interfered with the 2016 election?” Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, asked Sessions.
“It appears so,” Sessions replied. “The intelligence community seems to be united in that. But I have to tell you, Sen. King, I know nothing but what I’ve read in the paper. I’ve never received any detailed briefing on how a hacking occurred or how information was alleged to have influenced the campaign.”
