Sessions Prepares Testimony For Intelligence Committee (Audio)

that his testimony be a public hearing. A little over a week ago, Democratic Senators Patrick Leahy and Alf Franken revealed they had asked then FBI Director Comey to investigate Sessions for perjury stemming from his confirmation hearing testimony. Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal has said if there is proof that Sessions had a third meeting with Russian Ambassador Sergey kiss Leak,

he should resign. He testified falsely, he then corrected the record under oath, so this failure to disclose would be in effect a second instance of non truthfulness and I believe would require his resignation. Our guests are two professors from Fordham Law School, Andrew Kent and Jed Sugarman. Andrew Sessions was originally scheduled appear before the House and Senate

Appropriation Subcommittee. He decided he wanted to appear before the Senate Intelligence Committee, and he also decided that he wanted it to be public testimony. Is that a surprise to you. Sessions as apparently canceled three times on going back to the Hill ever since his confirmation hearing, reportedly because he's been concerned about getting grilled by Democrats about his misstatements

about Russia. Um. What what I read was that he had he had initially asked for the Intelligence Committee session today to be closed, but the pressure from Democrats on the committee led it to be an open one. UM. So I think he probably would rather not testify publicly, but it looks like he's going to have to. And Jed start with the encounters with the Russians. And you

heard what Senator Blumenthal said. He had told lawmakers that his January confirmation hearing that he hadn't met with the Russians. Then he corrected his testimony. Now there are questions about possible additional encounters. Is it perjury if he did have additional encounters? Well, I think it I think it. I

actually think it was perjury and false testimony. Back in January, if you look at the sequence of events of precisely what happened in January, he was first asked by Senator Franken a general question about Russian contacts of the campaign, and he changed He answered a question he wasn't asked,

which is to say he didn't have any Russian contacts. Now, then what happened was he had an opportunity to and if it happens all the time, people will look at their testimony and said, you know what, I said something misleading. He had that opportunity, and in fact, Senator lay He asked him a question, did you have any meetings about

the campaign? The sixteen campaign? And he just answered flatly no. And it turns out that it was only by stretching by by UM I think misinterpreting those questions that he is able to um make any kind of claim that he didn't lie. I think when you take those two events together, he already misrepresented. So let me say that one is a question of perjury, but there's another statute for false statements and false testimony, and those are two

different um criminal violations. I think it's clear that he's given false testimony already. So this third question, I think the come not puts him in even greater legal jeopardy. He's already made a false statement, hasn't and failed to change it in time. This third meeting, Uh, it really puts him in intense scrutiny for a much clear case

of perjury and false testimony. And Andrew, some of the senators are really focused on what he had to do with Comey's firing, since he had recused himself from the Russia invest instigation, and why he didn't step in between Comy and the president. All the questions of his lingering when the President asked him to leave. What kind of questions do you see coming from that? I mean, I think he has a lot to answer for their Frankly he um. You know, his recusal was very broad any

campaign related matters, Um. And you know, on the first day of Comy's firing, and when it looked like the White House claim was going to be that it simply had to do with um with Comy's you know, activities back in two thousand six. You know, maybe it was appropriate processions to have been involved in that. But once the President stated repeatedly that he had fired him because of the Russia investigation. I think it was very clear that Session should have had nothing to do with advising

on or ratifying that decision. So I think he's going to get some very very tough questions about what, you know, how he was possibly thinking that that was consistent with his recusal on the on the second mount that you raised, June, you know, the his spokesperson has pushed back a little bit on Comy's claim, saying that, um, saying that you know, Sessions did uh, you know, tell callmy that he agreed that, you know, there should not be direct contact of that

kind between the between the president and the FBI director, and you know, suggesting that he was You're going to try to try to be helpful going forward and making sure those contexts didn't happen, uh, you know, sort of a less dark version than Comy's testimony, which was essentially that, uh, you know that Sessions did nothing. So we'll see. Um, you know, I think it's on the first one, I

think it's pretty indefensible. On the second one, he may well have some uh you know, some qualifying or explaining that that he could do that might put you know, his conduct in a better light. But I guess we'll see tomorrow. And UM, jed, how how significant is this testimony? Is his job on the line? I think, I think who job is on the line? And number of ways.

I mean the fact that this is going to be an open and open testimony, UH, is going to be UM scrutiny that increases from the Coomi hearings last week. It was something like thirty million people watched that live or something like that. So we know that Trump cares a lot about ratings and this is this will get under open televised hearings. This will get tremendous scrutiny. UH and UM, I think there are going to be lots of questions beyond the questions that we've teed up here.

I think this is really an opportunity for both sides. All Right, I'll have to stop you there. We'll pick up with more of this