Joining us is Jennifer Rogers, Executive director of the Center for the Advancement of Public Integrity. Jennifer, perjury requires a statement under oath that is false, material, or significant, and that the speaker knows is false. Does sessions testimony fit the legal criteria for perjury? I don't think so. I think the question and answer are just a little too
ambiguous to make a perjury count out. It's just a very very hard statue to prove, and in this case, it's just not a clean enough question and answer to be able to say that for sure he knew that he was being untruthful when he answered, Well, Jennifer, is is that the only question here though, whether or not he committed perjury or because a lot of people in Congress at least seem to be upset with um the veracity,
whether or not it's a crime. Well, there are a whole host of issues about whether the Attorney General was misleading Congress and if so, whether he should resigning. And you know, there's a false statement statute also that could be applied here. There's even a misdemeanor statute for misleading Congress that was used back in the Watergate times. UM So I'm really just talking about perjury because it is
such a hard statute to prove. But there are a whole host of other issues that you know, become a little bit more of a political issue than a legal issue. And so what what you know, let's say that you can't prove perjury here, what what could Congress look at if they wanted to investigate what is going on here and what has happened here? Well, on the legal side, you know, there's really just perjury and false statements, neither of which I think is going to be actionable here
unless additional information came out. Um. And then there's the misdemeanor about misleading Congress. That one is a possibility. Uh. And then of course there're a whole, a whole realm of non legal actions, right. They could continue to investigate him and you know, seek his resignation and and other other means of removal other than criminal convictions under the legal system, But as far as the law is concerned, the options are pretty limited, at least on the evidence
we know now, unless something else comes out. So what about contempt of Congress proceedings? UM? I think could certainly UM initiate something like that um. You know, the problem is we're dealing with a Republican Congress that doesn't seem so far to be bowing to pressure to go too
far into this. Um. So, you know, all the possibilities kind of on the political side are a little bit sketchy given the Republican leadership in Congress, but that is a possibility if they were willing to take that up. Jennifer just pushing to pass having Democrats pushed to pass a contempt of Congress resolution could force him to resign. It's certainly there's been pressure to other attorney generals in
the past that have pushed them to resign. And isn't there also a factor of the Attorney General being the top law enforcement officer in the nation and being held to a strict standard. Well, certainly the Attorney General should be held to the highest of ethical standards, you know. But what he's saying is, you know, I wasn't lying. It just was the question was asked, and I wasn't thinking about this other contact that I had had in
a different context. So at least as far as what Attorney General Sessions is claiming now, he is you know, being uh, he is acting in the in the highest standards. So you know, I'm not sure that he would disagree with the fact that he should be held at that standard. But he says that he is um, and you know, it's it's it's kind of hard to disprove it unless again,
there's evidence to come out. I mean, surely if there were a recording of the meeting where it was clear they were talking about the campaign and Russian influence in the election, then I think it would be more clear that he knew he wasn't telling the roots um when he said he didn't know about any communications of that nature. UM. But short of that, you know, I think he just says, look, it was a little bit of a disconnect. I was thinking about one thing and and you know, other people
are thinking about other things, and that's where we are. Well, so he's now accused himself from the investigation, saying that he that you know, he's not going to take any part in them at this point. Now that we found out about these things, you know, it raises it's raised a number of questions for people about why he didn't recuse earlier, and is recusal sufficient? But I wonder if he really didn't do if he says he didn't do
anything wrong here. Does he really need to be recused? Well, I think he does, Um, And the reason is that, first of all, recusal, you should have a very low bar for recusal. If there's really any suggestion at all that you have a personal conflict or that you personally will be brought into the scope of an investigation, then you really should recuse um. And so I think it
it was the right decision. I think it didn't happen earlier because he was just trying to fend off the growing storm about it, and you know, finally when it became a bit of a roar, then he did say he would recuse. So the Deputy Attorney General will will handle the investigation, and you know, we'll wait to see where that goes, of course, but ultimately I think it
was right to step away. You know, high level federal officials need to not only avoid actual conflicts, but the appearance of conflicts, and so you know, ultimately that was he did the right thing. Jennifer. He said he's going to correct the record, but some senators are criticizing him for his failure to clarify his response in written testimony
to the committee. Afterwards, and he had a lot of opportunity to clarify his response once he realized what was happening with Michael Flynn and all the different the investigations into the alleged Russia connection. So is at incriminating, you know, it's hard to say. I mean, again, he's maintaining that the context that he had were in a totally different context. They were context he had because he was a senator or not because he was kind of part of the
Trump world. So you know, he could just say, listen, I had a separation there. You know, I didn't have any contact in connection with the Trump things that I was doing, and so I didn't feel any need to correct the record in that respect. Um, you know, he's he's got that division. He's maintaining that division. If something comes out that shows that that's not an actual division,
then we'll have more to talk about. But I think he just kind of came up with this, you know, dividing line in his mind, and he's he's sticking to it in always. Let me just tell you some of
the events. Let's just go through a chronology and then we can put into context what what where he was at perhaps on March seventeenth, he discussed Trump's foreign policy positions, including there being no re He's in for the US and Russia to be at loggerheads at a meeting on July eighteen, the Russian ambassador approached him after a Heritage Foundation panel that focused on Russia's incursions into Ukraine and Georgia. On July thirty one, in an appearance on CNN, he
defended Trump's position on reaching out to Russia. And then September eight you have him meeting with that Russian ambassador that had approached him in his Senate office. In light of that, and as we see some of his aids perhaps being called before the committee, doesn't it seem as if there is and he does have an involvement with the Russia issue. Well, look, I mean he certainly could.
I think the problem is we just don't have any evidence other than what he is saying about what happened during that meeting, um so, and you need that kind of evidence to bring charges. So whatever it looks like politically and the pressure that's on him to resign or what have you, that's kind of one side of things. But you know, what I've been thinking about really is
more on the legal side of things. What evidence you have to have to bring an actual criminal charge, and you know, innuendo and suggestive chronologies really just aren't enough. So without evidence that what happened in that meeting really was related to the campaign or the election and not to just general Senate stuff, UM, you know, I don't
think you have it. And you know, I'm even mindful of the commentary I've seen recently that says that Senators don't typically meet with ambassadors, UM, just to talk about general Senate stuff. It's not the sort of thing you would do to meet with a foreign adversary. UM. So I'm not sure what they did talk about or how it can be justified. But without evidence that that's not true and what they actually we're doing was talking about election or campaign related things, it's not solid enough to
bring a criminal case. Well, you know, you're going to have Justice Department lawyers and presumably the FBI now investigating this. UM. The Attorney General recused. You know, the White House has been very outspoken about UM, all of these issues and their position on them, and some have called for a you know, a special prosecutor or investigator to take a
look at these allegations and that hasn't happened. Do you think, Jennifer, that you know, people can have some faith in the Justice Department to actually do this investigation given the Attorney General's involvement in what's coming from the White House, or how ethically should people be thinking about what the Justice Department is about to do? You know, I think we
can have confidence in what's going to happen. UM. I was lucky enough to work with Jim Comey when he was the U. S Attorney in Manhattan, and I have the highest faith in his abilities to be independent and impartial and to take the investigation where the evidence leads. And I've heard heard also very good things about Rod Rosenstein, who's due to come in after confirmation and as the
Deputy Attorney General. I don't know him personally, but I've heard good things about his um, his ethics, So you know, I do think that these are people who are charged with upholding the law and for investigating and and following
where the evidence leads. So I do think that we can have confidence that, uh, if there is evidence to suggest that there was a lie or even misleading evidence put before the Congress, that UM that that they will go with that and and ultimately do whatever is appropriate with that information.