It was the first appearance of Jeff's Sessions before the Senate Judiciary Committee since his confirmation as Attorney General, and yesterday was more memorable for the question Sessions refused to answer than for those he did, and for the contentious nature of the questioning. Here's Vermont Democratic Senator Patrick Lahy asking Sessions about contacts with the Russian government during the presidential campaign, including the two lawyers discussing the legal implications
of certain words. Is there a difference between responding no and I do not recall well that legally significant? Yes? Repeat the question again about emails since the campaign. If you discussed with any Russian connected official anything about emails, discuss with them, I don't recall. I haven't done any such thing. Sessions repeatedly denied any improper contacts with the
Russian government during the presidential campaign. Joining us are Ryan Goodman, professor at n y U Law School, and Jeff Kramer, managing director at Berkeley Research Group and a former federal prosecutor. Ryan there were many long silences and hesitation in answering questions by Jeff Sessions. Could this be seen as a lawyer who was burned in his last appearance before this committee, and was being very very careful about everything he said.
I think that's right. He had to be careful about each and every word because now everybody is picking apart each and every word that he says in response to these kinds of specific questions from Senator Leahy about Russian contexts and other things like that. So I think each time you could tell an important moments, he was pausing
to think very clearly what his response needs to be. Jeff, amid all those pauses and thinking and carefulness, did we learn anything about the Russia investigation or the contacts between the between Trump officials in in in Russian officials at all during yesterday's testimony? No, I don't think so. There Not only weren't there any great revelations, I don't think there any revelations at all. It was just parsing words.
The attorney general, former prosecutor in Alabama was very careful, as was just discussed, UH to to to parse his words and make sure he wouldn't set himself up for any sort of perjury trap later. But this was not necessarily a quest for new information. UH politics was certainly on display there. Ryan tell us what he said about the special counsels Robert Mueller's investigation, did he appear to give it his imprima tour, so to speak? Right? I think that he in the sensus thing clear of that.
So in a way that Mueller can infect advance with the investigation, and I think would be politically unwise for him to do anything else. But Jeff, let me ask you that sort of the same question. So in Sessions was asked about Robert Mueller and whether he had confidence in him. His his answer was, I think he will produce the work in a way he thinks is correct, and history will judge. Um. Does that strike you as as as tepid of an endorsement as it strikes me.
I'm laughing as you said that, Michael Um. Yeah, I couldn't imagine anything that would be more milk post um. And I think others and even on the Republican side, have have vouched for former Director Mueller as a man of integrity. But certainly the Attorney General left himself the whibble room. So if the report doesn't come out or an investigation doesn't come out as he thought fit, that history would would judge this. He wasn't even saying that Mueller was a was a good and honorable man. He
wasn't even giving him that. So there was there was nothing from the Attorney General that was gracious at all in that answer. Ryan. There was a great deal of questioning about executive privilege because Sessions refused to answer any questions or discuss his conversations with President Trump, leading Democratic Senator Sheldon white House to ask him about a letter by President Reagan and the guidelines for executive privilege tell
us about that. So the guidelines from the Reagan administration basically would require Sessions to give a commitment to the senator as to when he would come back with a determination from the president as to whether or not the president will will assert executive privilege. But you could say that the ball is really in Congress's court because they
have not forced the issue. Um the way in which they would need to force the issue is either to subpoena Sessions rather than him appear willing fully and this kind of a setting, or for them to they could supposedly they could apparently jump over subpoena and just say we will hold you in contempt if you do not
either answer our question or a executive privilege. So that's really the kind of lack of political will on the part of the Senate to assert its prerogative if they really want to get an answer to the question as to whether or not there is an assertion of the executive privilege, at least an answer to the very specific question of what they're after, which is to find out what Sessions knew about and consulted with the president about
the firing of James Comy. Jeff. Given that the Democrats are in the majority, they may well want to do some of those things that Ryan was talking about, but but don't have the votes to do it. Um. Do they have any recourse here? They did send Sessions a letter before this this testimony is saying we expect you to either answer the questions or tell us that the president is invoking executive privilege, but they they he seemingly
just ignored that letter he did. Um. And there's so there's not much teeth what the Democrats can do other than the court of public opinion. Um. And that changes on a day to day basis, depending what the emergency of the day is. So you know, there is not much they can do. They can send any letters they want, the Attorney General can ignore them or dance around the
questions and just get through the testimony. We're talking about Jeff sessions first oversight hearing as Attorney General before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday. Our guests are Ryan Goodman, a professor at n y U Law School, and Jeffrey Cramer, managing director at Berkeley Research Group and a former federal prosecutor. Jeff there was some questioning about Special Counsel Robert Muller.
What did we learn? Um, Well, a lot of the questions pertain to just kind of looking into the into the future as to what might be the future, not only the investigation, but of Muller himself. So while the Attorney General has recused himself, it's up to the Dag the w Attorney General UH now technically to be in charge of Muller. And the questions pertained to how the president might uh dismiss Muller and what the process would
be UH. There was no guarantees on the part of the Attorney General now that he's recused himself, which he read or it was a proper thing to do, which which I agree with, UM. But a lot of the democratic senators were concerned that the president may just started going through the Department of Justice and firing people until he finds someone willing to get rid of Robert Mueller. Ryan Jeff Sessions was asked whether Robert Mueller had requested
an interview with him. UH. For first, I said I don't think so, and then eventually he said no. Does that tell us anything about the pace or what's going on with uh Mr Muller's investigation. Um, it's hard to read the tea leaves on that one. UM. There was a very strange pause in the part of the Attorney General and answer to the question from Senator Leahy is to whether or not he's been requested to interview with
Mueller's team. UM. I think my best interpretation of that is just that Sessions hadn't been fully prepared to know how to answer that question whether he should confirm or not confirm, or deny or deny. UM. So the fact that he isn't or has not yet being interviewed by Mueller might at best be an indication as to where Mueller's thinking about going on the obstruction of justice inquiry.
Because there's some question as to whether or not Sessions himself would be implicated in the obstruction of justice if he was involved in firing the firing of Jim Comey for the reason of interfering with the Russian investigation and uh Sessions defended the firing of James Comey and insisted that it stemmed from Comey's mishandling of the Hillary Clinton email case. Did he make a good effort at that,
Jeff um half hearted. He certainly told the company line with respect to the reason that Jim Comey was far The problem is the President has given different answers himself. The last thing the Attorney General was going to do was step outside the box. So he just told the line and said that Jim Comey was fired due to his mishandling. And in his opinion of the Clinton email over the President has on record saying that it pertained to at least the Russian investigation a little bit. So again,
no new revelations there. He didn't get himself in any trouble, but he wasn't going to go outside what the President had initially said Ryan's. Sessions was asked several times whether before firing Jim call Me, whether President Trump had said it would quote lift the cloud of the Russia investigation, and the Attorney General said, I won't discuss those conversations. Some people have said, well, it would have been pretty easy for Jeff Sessions to say no, I didn't hear
him say that. Um is it fair to to uh infer anything from the fact that he wouldn't wouldn't respond to that question? Um? I don't think it's fair and for anything, because if he answers just that one question, then in a sense he has waived or they have waived executive privilege. So why could he answer that one question and then not answer a series of others that would follow on it. So I think that was a problem for him, But I do I think he got himself in a little bit of trouble just in the
atmospherics of the way he handled these questions. Uh So, something that kind of went viral and social media is the Q and A between Lindsey Graham and Sessions on this very question. And Lindsey Graham asks a very point in question, which is, if the rationale for firing Comie was his handling of the Clinton emails, why wouldn't the president have known that on day one? Since that was so that was last year, and why would it take until May ninth to make that kind of a determination.
And then there's a very long, uncomfortable pause on the part of the Attorney General not knowing really how to respond to that. I think that hurt him. I think, at least in the court of public opinion, uh to understand like, is that a real plausible explanation that he's given. Um,
it didn't come out right for him. I didn't think Jeff, and we have about thirty seconds here in any other areas that he was asked questions in, for example, gay rights, Um did was there anything revealing that he said that that changed our opinion of what he's been doing? No, not at all. I think while there's been some confusion by the White Houses to where they stand on their issues,
the Department of Justice has been pretty clear. They're locking up illegal aliens, they want to set up more federal prisons, they're cracking down on drugs, They're giving local prosecutors les leeway. They have been very linear as to what and what they're doing at the Department of Justice. Uh. So, I think that's a problem for a lot of people who we are dialing back least to my opinion, to how we tackle these problems in the nineties. I want to
thank both of you for being on Bloomberg Law. That's Jeffrey Kramer, Managing director at Berkeley Research Group and Ryan Goodman, professor at m y U Law School, coming up on Bloomberg Law. How nondisclosure agreements in sexual harassment settlements contribute to the culture of silence around workplace harassment.