Sessions Faces Senate Questions After Comey Testimony (Audio)

gloves when he testified during his confirmation hearings. The senator's questions are expected to run the gamut from his involvement with fired FBI Director James Comey and his dismissal, to his contacts with the Russians and his testimony about those contacts during his confirmation hearings. A little over a week ago, Democratic Senators Patrick Lahey and Al Franken revealed they had asked Comey to investigate Sessions for perjury, stemming from this

part of his confirmation hearing. I have then called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign, and I didn't and not have communications with the Russians. After a report came out that Sessions had two contacts with the Russian ambassador last year, he changed his testimony. Now there are reports that Sessions may have had a third closed door me with the Russian ambassador at the Mayflower

Hotel in Washington, something the Justice Department has denied. My guests are Ryan Goodman, professor at n y U Law School and co editor in chief of Just Security, and Bradley Moss, partner at Mark Zad Ryan. Let's start with the question of sessions talks with the Russians. Is there a possibility of perjury charges from his prior testimony or if he denies a third meeting today. I suppose it's

theoretically possible. It all really rests on something that's very difficult to prove, which is what was in his mind when he testified originally. So his confirmation hearings, he definitely denied any contexts with Russians during the campaign. But the question is was he like wilfully withholding that information um? And is the information one in which he thought he was answering the right question. So I think it comes down to those kinds of difficult evidentiary considerations. Brad Sessions

was a big part of Comey's testimony. At one point, Comy testified, if, as the President said, I was fired because of the Russia investigation, why was the attorney general involved in that chain? If Sessions did not adhere to his recusal from the Russian investigations, would there be any penalty. No, And when it comes to the attorney sorry, Mark, oh, Bradley Bradly Sorry, Yeah, No, when it comes to a general,

he ultimately serves at the pleasure of the president. So while in theory, yes, the recusal was something to be adhered to, it's a technical violation if in fact he ran a foul love it, And truly only the president can take any action. Congress can certainly, and I certainly expect they will ask him questions about that today on their oath to see the extent to which he considered the ethical concerns and the extent to which he was running a fall of his recusal. But in the end

he'll be in that job until the President demands his resignation. So, Ryan, we've heard Chuck Schumer, the minority leaders, say that we want assurances that he's going to keep to his recusal from the Russian investigation. He doesn't get those insurances, right, I think that he would have to get those insurances also from other people in the buildings. So the Deputy Attorney General is trying to give those kinds of assurances since he's basically in control of the supervision of the

special Counsel who's investigating Russia right now. Um, but it's otherwise going to be very difficult for them to get that kind of information. And also the one big question is, you know, how does Jeff's sessions interpret the parameters of his recusal. That's one of the other issues that will have to be faced today because he might interpret it

narrowly broadly, you know, for what. For example, one question is, uh, the Attorney General is only said he has recused from manners that arose out of the campaigns, Well, then what about the questions of instruction of justice? Um? If the Special Counsel is now taking up those issues, I could imagine that the Attorney General will say that that's not

what fits within the parameters of his refusals. So it would have to be some pretty significant communication between the Justice Department and the Senate for the Senate to be informed about what exactly the Attorney generals involved in and what he's not. Bradley in about seconds, what do you see as the most important question that he'll be asked?

It's would be two fold. Its going to be and it is really responding to James Colemys testimony to what extent did he respond or address James Colemys concerns about being left in the room alone with the President and to what extent, if any, did uh Mr Sessions ever intervene or was he ever asked about intervening in the investigation?

And to Michael Flynn, those are pretty serious concerns raised by the Comy testimony, and I expect that I'll be brought up today how important is Attorney General Jeff sessions testimony to an investigation of President Trump, to James Colmi's credibility to the Russia investigation of the election interference, and to sessions position as Attorney General. I've been talking with Ryan Goodman, professor at m y U Law School and co editor in chief of Just Security, and Bradley Moss,

partner at Mark Sade. Ryan, how important is sessions testimony? UM? I think it is potentially quite important if he has knowledge of um other contacts between the Trump campaign that might have taken place with Russia or with through wiki

leaks UM. And then of course there's this burning question about whether or not low and Behold there was a third meeting in which he took place with a Russian official at the Mayflower Hotel and that was raised potentially by Comey's own testimony, where he referred to the fact that he could not disclose in an open session what the reasons where why Sessions would need a he recused, and that the FBI knew that he would need to be recused all the way back in mid February, Brad

Comey said that he took the opportunity to implore the Attorney General to prevent any future direct communication between the President and him after that February fourteen meeting, and the Justice Department denied that, saying that Sessions stressed to Comy the need to observe proper protocols. What should as Attorney general, what should Comey? What should Sessions have done in that instance?

Well as Thesory General and as the effectively the overseer of the entire Justice Department, he should, emphasis on, should have more or less incurred with the concern and unders recognized the concern raised by Director Comey, and he should have taken appropriate action to make the president aware. The president's unfamiliar with standard government procedures, so he's still learning

about this. Make the president aware of what is proper, what is custom and tradition terms of how even within the executive branch, certain individuals are supposed to be essentially quarantined from each other to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. It's something that President is not particularly well versed in.

It's something that the Attorney General, as his top legal uh law enforcement official, separate and separate top legal advisor, separate from the White House Council, really should have been making the President aware of and putting these concerns at ease, and the fact that he didn't appears to not have done so raises some questions about the extents which he views himself as independent from the White House Ryan. There has been some question of what he will answer as

far as his conversations with the president. According to a person familiar with sessions plan, he has told the committee he refused to discuss his conversations with the president. The notion of executive privilege has been dangled out there and questions asked about that. A few weeks ago, we saw the Director of National Intelligence Dan Coates and National Security Agency Director Admiral Mike Rodgers simply refuse to answer a

question about their conversations with Trump without citing anything. So what what can Sessions do legally? That's a great question, and I was going to say the same thing. It's almost like deja vu all over again from last week before the very same committee. Sessions, if he wants to assert that he does that he will not speak about conversations with the president. Must must assert and invoke some

legal basis for that. You can't go before Congress testify and in a certain no legal basis, as though it's just your own preference that you don't want to answer certain questions. So he could actually be held in contempt of Congress unless he, at the very least sites of legal reason like executive privilege, said that the conversations between

him and the president are privileged and confidential. That then that would open up a second question as to whether or not that's an appropriate invocation of executive privilege, especially since Congress needs to perform its role here in investigating matters of potential legal violations like obstruction of justice and the Russia investigation. So I think he's going to have a very hard time with that, and a very hard time with both Republicans and Democrats, quite likely because they

want to assert Congress as prerogatives in this domain. Brad. We have that session of the February fourteenth meeting in the Oval Office where I think that's had the most conversation directed at it, about Comi's testimony, the most dissection of it, where he said, my sense was the Attorney General knew he shouldn't be leaving, which is why he was lingering. Now, how do you that's an open question about feelings? Almost how do you expect Sessions to handle

a question about that? Oh, it'll you know, it'll be very interesting. That's one of the certainly one of the questions we want to have addressed is they'll ask him, essentially for the TikTok of how that meeting started in terms of both Attorney Genial Sessions and Jared Kushner trying to stay in the room with the president when he

tried to order everyone else. So we can speak to Coomy, they'll ask Mr Sessions what it was, what it was in his mindset, what was his room on whether or not he needed to stay in the room, did he have concerns about leaving the president alone in there with the FBI director, Whether or not he in his professional opinion, uses it appropriate. So that kind of one on one meeting, especially given that the FBI was still investigating a former senior White House official in the form of Michael Flynn.

So I think his description of those events will go a long way to giving Congress and the public to an extent, a better feel for how things have worked in this White House and how the Attorney General has viewed his role. Ryan in about thirty seconds, will they be asking him about his involvement in the selection of a new FBI director and what he's been asked. Sure,

I think that that could come up. It's not as easy to predict, but you know, he has himself apparently named other people that he thought of as better for the job, and those people were generally thought of as lacking the kind of independence that one would want for

an FBI director. So I think it's a very fair question to raise with him, in particular about what he thinks of as the independence of an FBI director and what he thinks of that person ever, for example, swearing loyalty to the President or something like that, it's really

a question of the independence that somebody brings to that role. Well, thank you for helping us look forward to this testimony and what to watch out For that's Ryan Goodman, professor at n y U Law School, co editor in chief of Just Security, and Bradley Moss, partner at mark z