And many of those questions involve just what President Trump said about James Comey before his firing.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions dodged many of the most important questions he was asked during his Senate testimony Tuesday, arguing that it would be improper for him to disclose “confidential communications” between him and President Donald Trump. Senators wanted to know just what Sessions and Trump had discussed about FBI director before Trump fired him, and whether Sessions was surprised to later hear Trump admit that he did so due to the Russia investigation. But again and again on questions like these, Sessions testified he was “not able to comment on” or “not able to characterize” something he and President Trump talked about. And yet it’s not that Sessions wasn’ t willing to answer any sensitive or high-stakes questions. He bluntly told Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) that he’s never talked to the president about whether he has confidence in special counsel Bob Mueller. “I have no idea. I have not talked to him about it, ” Sessions said. However, when it came to questioning implying improper behavior by Trump around the firing of FBI Director James Comey, Sessions grew mum and said he couldn’ t answer. The hearing was supposed to shed more light on why Trump fired Comey, but Sessions refused to give those details. So it’s worth taking a closer look at just which questions Sessions answer. When asked, he demurred about: Now, Sessions’s non-answers surely shouldn’ t be taken as confirmation that any of these things happened. Still, it’s worth taking note that under oath, he refused to straightforwardly deny any of these suggestions. So we don’ t have a clear answer on whether they happened or not. To set the stage for the questioning: On May 8, the day before President Trump fired FBI Director Comey, he had Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. At that meeting, , Trump had already decided to fire Comey, but he asked Sessions and Rosenstein to make the case for doing so in writing: They ended up doing so, with Rosenstein writing a lengthy critique of Comey’s behavior in the Clinton email case and Sessions writing that he agreed with the critique. The Trump White House released those statements in their announcement of Comey’s firing, presenting them as justification. But it always appeared to be a thin pretext — there were multiple reports that Trump had repeatedly complained to associates about Comey’s handling of the Russia investigation, and indeed, in an interview just two days after the firing. (“When I decided to just do [fire Comey] , I said to myself, I said, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story,’ ” Trump said.) The president reportedly said a similar thing to Russians in the Oval Office —, he said the firing of the “nutjob” Comey eased “pressure” on him. So what exactly did Trump say about Comey to Sessions and Rosenstein during that White House meeting, and at other times? Was Sessions fully aware that Trump was firing Comey because of the Russia investigation? If so, wouldn’ t this seem to violate his recusal? In the hearing, Sessions restated that he agreed with Rosenstein’s memo, and that they had talked months earlier and agreed that the FBI should probably have new leadership for those reasons (Comey’s mishandling of the Clinton email case) . For instance, Sessions was asked by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) whether he had ever discussed Comey’s handling of the Russia investigation with the president. That’s one of the questions Sessions wouldn’ t answer. Later, Sen. Angus King (I-ME) asked a similar question, and Sessions similarly dodged: Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) , for one, wasn’ t satisfied with these answers: Indeed, here’s the tweet: So did Trump disparage Comey’s handling of the Russia investigation to Sessions before the firing? We don’ t have a straight answer here. Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) pursued a similar line of inquiry, asking Sessions whether he felt “misled” when Trump told Lester Holt that Russia was on his mind when he made the decision to fire Comey. And Sessions dodged, saying he was “not able to characterize” his reaction, and that he “wouldn’ t try to comment on that”: Reed then followed up, asking Sessions if he “had no inkling” that Trump was thinking about the Russia investigation when deciding whether to fire Comey. And Sessions dodged again: Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) also asked about the Holt interview, and whether it would have made Sessions feel “uncomfortable” about even the timing of the firing. Again, Sessions said he “would respectfully not comment on that”: These dodges are particularly suggestive, since these aren’ t even direct questions about what Trump said — they’ re questions about Session’s own thoughts and reactions to public news events. So did Sessions know what was up, regarding Trump’s apparent true reasons for firing Comey? He wouldn’ t say. Back in early March, Sessions recused himself from any investigations related to the 2016 election — meaning, primarily, the Russia investigation. Several have claimed that Trump has been unhappy with Sessions of late, primarily because the attorney general chose to recuse himself from handling the investigation into Russian interference. “Two sources close to the president say he has lashed out repeatedly at the attorney general in private meetings, blaming the recusal for the expansion of the Russia investigation, now overseen by Special Counsel and former FBI Director Robert Mueller, ”. So Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM) asked about this, and — surprise, surprise — Sessions wouldn’ t answer: So is Trump complaining to Sessions that he shouldn’ t have recused himself? Early on in the hearing, Warner asked Sessions another question — about whether he’ d discussed any potential presidential pardons related to the Russia investigation with top White House or Justice Department officials. Pardons are, of course, a presidential power. But talking about pardons for aides who are under investigation for wrongdoing before they’ re even convicted, tried, or charged would certainly raise questions about a cover-up.
