Summary
Attorney general Jeff Sessions’ testimony has concluded. Here’s what we learned:
- Sessions vehemently denied any collusion with Russian entities in disrupting the American election. He said the accusations were scurrilous “appalling” and amounted to a “detestable lie.”
- Sessions repeatedly said he could not reveal whether he spoke with Donald Trump about the Russia inquiry. The two did discuss the firing of Comey, however, which Trump has said came about because of Trump’s displeasure at the handling of the Russia inquiry.
- Sessions said he was right to sign a letter recommending the firing of James Comey despite his recusal from the Russia inquiry. Sessions characterized the Russian inquiry as one of thousands of investigations that an attorney general might step away from while still maintaining a leadership role in major business.
- Sessions testified that he believed even before he was confirmed that Comey needed to be fired. Sessions spoke at the time with current deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein about it.
- Sessions stopped short of backing Comey in Comey’s description of a strange Oval Office scene in which Comey said Trump asked Sessions and others to leave the room before discussing Michael Flynn with Comey. Sessions said people “filtered out” but he would not say whether Trump ordered him to leave.
- While Sessions said it was entirely appropriate for a president to have a direct conversation with an FBI director, he suggested it was inappropriate for Comey to update Trump on the Russia inquiry without running it by his superiors.
Updated
Sessions hearing concludes
The hearing is wrapping up. Burr offers Warner a closing comment. Warner thanks Sessions for taking the Russia tampering seriously. “There doesn’t seem to be a recognition of the seriousness of this threat. It is of enormous concern.”
Burr thanks Sessions for answering questions about his Mayflower meeting with Kislyak, his recusal from the Russian inquiry and his conversations with James Comey.
Burr asks Sessions to work with the White House to figure out if there are any disclosures he can make that he didn’t today.
Gavel.
Senator John McCain asks whether Sessions raised concerns about the Russian invasion of Ukraine at his meetings with the Russians.
Sessions says he did. “It was a bit testy,” he allows.
McCain: Did you raise concerns about the Syrian president?
Sessions: I don’t recall.
McCain: About Russian interference with the election?
Sessions: I don’t recall.
McCain: Security issues? I don’t recall you as being particularly vocal on such issues.
Sessions is confused.
McCain: In other words, Russia-related security issues. Did you ever hold a hearing on these things or demonstrate interest in the area?
McCain is making the point that Sessions was not big into foreign relations, Russian bilateral relations and such.
Kamala Harris, Democrat of California. She notes that Sessions has repeatedly said, “To the best of my recollection.”
Did he refresh his memory with written documents like calendars and notes?
Sessions says he attempted to but the campaign was fast-moving and he didn’t keep notes of most of his meetings. “As appropriate I will supply the committee with documents. ... I would have to consult with lawyers.”
Harris asks, did Sessions review with lawyers the law regarding what he can and can’t share.
Sessions: “we discussed the basic parameters of testimony. I have not discussed disclosure rules.”
Harris: Will you commit to turning over documents where required:
Sessions: I’ll commit to looking at it.
Harris: Did you have any undisclosed conversations with Russians?
Sessions: I don’t recall it but I can’t testify as to what was said for example at the GOP convention.
Harris: Contacts with Russian businessmen or Russian nationals?
Sessions: I don’t believe so, although there were a lot of people at the convention. ... I’m not able to be rushed this fast, it makes me nervous.
Harris: Any comms with Trump officials about Russia or Russian interests in the US before January 20?
Sessions: “I believe I did... have conversations” about better relations between Russia and the United States.
Sessions: 'it's just like through the looking glass'
Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, a Republican.
His question: Did Donald Trump or any of his associates collude with Russia in hacking those emails and making them public? No Democrats ask that. Maybe because there’s no evidence of any such collusion.
Cotton muses: what do we think happened at the Mayflower? Do you like spy fiction? Jason Bourne or James Bond movies?
Cotton’s point is that the plot line of a Sessions Kislyak collusions is ridiculous.
Sessions: “Thank you for saying that, senator Cotton. It’s just like through the looking glass. What is this?”
Joe Manchin, Democrat of Virginia, has the ball. Would you go into a closed session?
Sessions: “I’m not sure. The executive privilege is not waived by going in camera or in closed session.... it’s often very problematic to have persons not cooperating... which may or may not be a factor in going into closed session.”
Manchin: Any other meetings with Russian officials?
Sessions: “I have wracked my brain and I do not believe so.”
Manchin: Any other meetings we should know about in the Trump campaign with Russians?
Sessions: “I don’t recall any.”
Manchin: What about these people:
Paul Manafort? “I don’t have any information that he had done so.”
Steve Bannon? “No information.”
Michael Flynn: “I don’t recall it.”
Reince Priebus: “I don’t recall.”
Stephen Miller: “I don’t recall.”
Corey Lewandowski. “I don’t recall haveing any of those individuals having any meeting with Russian officials.”
Carter Page: “I don’t know... I’m not sure. I don’t recall.”
James Lankford, Republican of Oklahoma, is up.
He joins the debate just finished, saying long precedent, including that established by Obama attorney general Eric Holder, showed some conversations between the attorney general and president are protected.
Sessions squirms in claim that conversations with Trump are protected
Angus King, independent of Maine. He gets into a real Catch-22 conversation with Sessions about how Sessions can refuse to talk about certain subjects as if Trump had invoked executive privilege when Trump has not done so. Sessions says Trump might do so.
King: What is the basis of your refusal to answer these questions [about his conversations with the president]? What is the legal basis?
Sessions: “I am protecting the right of the president to assert it if he chooses and there may be other protections that apply.”
King: I have not idea what you are talking about.
Sessions: “If it comes to a point where the issue is clear and there is a dispute about it, at some point the president will either assert the privilege or not, or some other privilege... It would be premature for me to deny the president a full and intelligent choice about executive privilege...”
King: Who asked for your opinion about Comey?
Sessions: I believe I’m correct in saying the president has said so.
King: Who asked you for your opinion.
Sessions: “The president asked us for our opinion. But I believe he’s already revealed that. But if he hasn’t and I’m in error, I would have constricted his constitutional privilege.”
King: Did Russia inquiry ever come up with Trump?
Sessions: I cannot answer that.
King: Do you believe Russia interfered in the election?
Sessions: “It appears so... but I have to tell you, I know nothing but what I’ve read in the paper.
King mentions the intelligence community memo laying out Russian tampering, which was more than a media report. You never asked for a briefing or attended a briefing?
Sessions: You might have been very critical of me, as part of the campaign...[had I done so.]
King: “I’m not talking about the campaign, I’m talking about what the Russians did.”
Photograph: Michael Reynolds/EPA
Updated
Notes from Twitter
Pres. Trump aboard Air Force One watched Attorney Gen.Sessions testify during 90 minute flight to Milwaukee, aide tells @jeffzeleny
— Steve Brusk (@stevebruskCNN) June 13, 2017
Sessions following Coats and Rogers precedent in acting as if POTUS has blocked some testimony via executive privilege without saying so
— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) June 13, 2017
Sessions won't say if he discussed Russia inquiry w Trump. Yet he discussed firing Comey with Trump, by his telling; Trump says bc of Russia
— Spencer Ackerman (@attackerman) June 13, 2017
Sessions said the president asked to put in writing Comey opinion. Rosenstein today said he couldn't answer same q because of investigation.
— John Dickerson (@jdickerson) June 13, 2017
Nobody has asked Sessions whether he offered to resign.
— Jim Acosta (@Acosta) June 13, 2017
Next up is Roy Blunt, Republican of Missouri.
Did you have a room at the Mayflower hotel, he asks?
Nope.
How many people were at the reception?
Two to three dozen.
Then you ran into people?
“I didn’t have any formal meeting with him, I’m confident of that. But I may have had an encounter with him at the reception.”
Extremely friendly line of questioning.
Sessions is back to talking about his concerns about Comey’s handling of the Clinton emails investigation.
The FBI does not decide whether to prosecute, Sessions says, calling it “a pretty breathtaking usurpation.”
The concern, Sessions says, was that “we had heading the FBI somewhat who boldly asserted the right to continue to make such decisions.”
Sessions is subtly insistent that Comey was fired over the Clinton matter, totally ignoring the president’s explicitly stated explanation.
Democrat Martin Heinrich of New Mexico is next.
He accuses Sessions of “impeding this investigation” by not answering questions about his conversations with the president.
Sessions says he is protecting the “president’s constitutional right by not giving it away.” He says it’s longstanding department guidelines.
Are those guidelines written down? Heinrich asks.
Sessions insists that his conversations with the president are protected.
Heinrich accuses Sessions of “obstructing” the congressional investigation, saying, “I think your silence speaks volumes.”
Sessions says he’s talked to lawyers and his silence is “consistent with my duties.”
Heinrich asks Sessions about answering “maybe” earlier when asked whether he’d depart if he caught a whiff of Russian involvement in the Trump campaign.
Sessions: “If there was an improper illegal relationship and an effort to impede or influence this campaign I absolutely would have departed.”
Good answer, Heinrich says. Why wasn’t that your answer before?
“I thought it was.”
Collins noted that Comey testified that he did not want to speak with Sessions about his one-on-one with Trump because he, Comey, knew Sessions would be recusing himself.
Does Sessions think Comey needed to bring his concerns to someone else?
Sessions: “I think the appropriate thing would have been for director Comey to talk with the acting deputy attorney general, who was his direct supervisor.”
Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, focuses on the order of actions in the Comey firing.
Sessions says he spoke with Rosenstein about the need to fire Comey before either was confirmed.
Collins: “Why do you believe that your recommendation to fire... was not inconsistent with your March 2nd recusal”?
Sessions: “The recusal involved one case in the DoJ... They conduct thousands of investigations. I’m the attorney general. It’s my responsibility to ensure that ... that department is run properly.””
Sessions says again that recusal from a single case – as examples he mentions DEA cases – should not foreclose on all leadership decisions.
Firey Sessions says of perceived conflicts in Russia inquiry: 'there are none'
Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, gives a speech against stonewalling. Then he goods in a good
Sessions: “I am not stonewalling. I am following the historic policies of the department of justice...
“Mr Comey, perhaps he didn’t know, but I basically recused myself from the day I got into office... I made and honest and proper decision to recuse myself.
Wyden: Comey said there were “problematic matters” relating to you with regard to the Russia investigation. What are they?
Sessions: “Why don’t you tell me. There are none, senator Wyden. There are none. I can tell you this is a secret innuendo being leaked about me and I don’t appreciate it.”
It did not violate my recusal. That would be the answer to that. The letter that I signed represented my views.
Wyden: That answer in my view doesn’t pass the smell test... the day before you wrote your letter he tweeted that the collusion was a total hoax...
Sessions: The memoranda that deputy Rosenstein wrote and my letter that accompanied it represented my views of the situation.
Sessions won't say whether Trump ordered him from room
Marco Rubio asks if Sessions remembers Trump asking him to leave the Oval Office. Sessions won’t say. But:
“I do recall being one of the last ones to leave.”
Q: Did you decide to linger?
A: I don’t know how that occurred. We had finished... a briefing... a number of people filtered out and I eventually left..
Q: Were you concerned?
A: I don’t know how I would characterize that Senator Rubio. I left, it didn’t seem to be a major problem. I knew that director Comey... could handle himself well.
Q: But Comey said he came to you with his concerns?
A: I think I described it more completely... he raised that issue with me I believe the next day...and he expressed concern to me about that private conversation. And I agreed with him essentially that there are rules... but there is not a prohibition...and he gave me no detail about what it was that he was concerned about... he certainly knew that he could call his direct supervisor [the deputy attorney general.
Sessions he knew Comey would not succumb to pressure.
Q: Are there White House tapes?
A: Not that I know of.
Q: Would there be an obligation to preserve those records?
A: I don’t know, probably so.
Q: Any sort of interaction with Russian or other businessmen or others that in hindsight seems suspicious?
A: I don’t believe in my conversations.... nah, well, I met a lot of people. A lot of foreign officials who wanted to argue their case... that’s a normal thing.
Sessions returns to Comey’s handling of the Clinton emails matter:
That was a clear view of mine and of DAG Rosenstein... that we had problems there, and it was my best judgment that a fresh start at the FBI was the appropriate thing to do. .. when Mr Comey declined the Clinton prosecution, that was really a usurpation of the authority of the federal prosecutors in the department of justice. It was a stunning development... that was a thunderous thing.
He also commented at some length... on the Clinton prosecution, which you should not do.”
Sessions is back to pretending the Comey firing was about the Clinton case, which the president himself has dismissed.
Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California and the former chairwoman of the committee.
When you wrote your letter to fire Comey, did you know that the president had already decided?
Sessions was asked what was in his mind. He replies that he can’t know what was in Trump’s mind:
I would say that I believe it’s been made public that the president asked us our opinion, it was given, and he asked us to put it in writing, and I don’t know how much more he said about it than that... I would let his words speak for themselves.”
Q: The decision had been made?
A: We were asked our opinion, and when we expressed it, which was consistent with the memo we wrote, I felt comfortable... in providing that information in writing.
Q: Do you concur with the president that he was going to fire Comey regardless?
Sessions says “I’m not sure what was in his mind explicitly.”
Q: Did you ever discuss Comey’s handling of the Russian inquiry with the president?
A: “I’m not able to discuss that.”
Q: You discussed his termination. Why wouldn’t you discuss the reasons?
A: The termination was made public by the president.
They go around about what Sessions can and can’t talk about.
Senator James Risch, Republican of Idaho, is up. A friendly interrogator.
He asks Sessions whether he can say that he never saw or heard a conversation in Trump world about colluding with the Russians.
“I can say that absolutely and I have no hesitation to do so.”
Q: Did you hear a whisper of Russian involvement.
A: “I’d have been shocked, and I’d have thought it was improper.”
Q: And headed for the exit I suppose?
A: “Well, maybe.”
Maybe?
Transcript: Sessions opening statement
ATTORNEY GENERAL JEFF SESSIONS PREPARED REMARKS TO THE UNITED STATES SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Thank you Chairman Burr and Ranking Member Warner for allowing me to publicly appear before the committee today.
I appreciate the Committee’s critically important efforts to investigate Russian interference with our democratic process. Such interference can never be tolerated and I encourage every effort to get to the bottom of any such allegations.
As you know, the Deputy Attorney General has appointed a special counsel to investigate matters related to Russian interference in the 2016 election. I am here today to address several issues that have been specifically raised before this committee, and I appreciate the opportunity to respond to questions as fully as I am able to do so. But as I advised you, Mr. Chairman, and consistent with long-standing Department of Justice practice, I cannot and will not violate my duty to protect confidential communications with the President.
Now, let me address some issues directly: I did not have any private meetings nor do I recall any conversations with any Russian officials at the Mayflower Hotel. I did not attend any meetings at that event. Prior to the speech, I attended a reception with my staff that included at least two dozen people and President Trump. Though I do recall several conversations I had during that pre-speech reception, I do not have any recollection of meeting or talking to the Russian Ambassador or any other Russian officials. If any brief interaction occurred in passing with the Russian Ambassador during that reception, I do not remember it. After the speech, I was interviewed by the news media, which had gathered as I remember in a different room, and then I left the hotel.
But whether I ever attended a reception where the Russian Ambassador was also present is entirely beside the point of this investigation into Russian interference with the 2016 campaigns. Let me state this clearly: I have never met with or had any conversations with any Russians or any foreign officials concerning any type of interference with any campaign or election. Further, I have no knowledge of any such conversations by anyone connected to the Trump campaign. I was your colleague in this body for 20 years, and the suggestion that I participated in any collusion or that I was aware of any collusion with the Russian government to hurt this country, which I have served with honor for over 35 years, or to undermine the integrity of our democratic process, is an appalling and detestable lie.
Relatedly, there is the assertion that I did not answer Senator Franken’s question honestly at my confirmation hearing. That is false. This is how it happened. He asked me a rambling question that included dramatic, new allegations that the United States intelligence community had advised President-elect Trump that “there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump’s surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.” I was taken aback by these explosive allegations, which he said were being reported in breaking news that day. I wanted to refute immediately any suggestion that I was a part of such an activity. I replied, “Senator Franken, I’m not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I didn’t have – did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it.”
That was the context in which I was asked the question, and in that context, my answer was a fair and correct response to the charge as I understood it. It simply did not occur to me to go further than the context of the question and list any conversations I may have had with Russians in routine situations, as I had with numerous other foreign officials.
Please hear me now. It was only in March of this year that a reporter asked my spokesperson whether I had ever met with any Russian officials. This was the first time that question had been posed. On the same day, we provided that reporter with the information related to the meeting I and my staff had held in my Senate office with Ambassador Kislyak, as well as the brief encounter in July after a speech that I had given during the convention in Cleveland, Ohio. I also provided the reporter a list of all 25 foreign ambassador meetings I had held during 2016. In addition, I provided supplemental testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee to explain this. I readily acknowledged these two meetings. Certainly nothing improper occurred.
Let me also explain clearly the circumstances of my recusal from the investigation into the Russian interference with the 2016 election. I was sworn in as Attorney General on Thursday, February 9th. The very next day, I met with career Department officials, including a senior ethics official, to discuss some things publicly reported in the press and that might have some bearing on the issue of recusal. From that point, February 10th, until I announced my formal recusal on March 2nd, I was never briefed on any investigative details and did not access information about the investigation; I received only the limited information that the Department’s career officials determined was necessary to inform my recusal decision. As such, I have no knowledge about this investigation beyond what has been publicly reported, and I have taken no action with regard to any such investigation. On the date of my formal recusal, my Chief of Staff sent an email to the heads of the relevant departments, including by name to Director Comey of the FBI, to instruct them to inform their staffs of this recusal and to advise them not to brief me or involve me in any such matters. And in fact, they have not. Importantly, I recused myself not because of any asserted wrongdoing on my part during the campaign, but because a Department of Justice regulation, 28 CFR 45.2, required it. That regulation states, in effect, that Department employees should not participate in investigations of a campaign if they have served as a campaign advisor.
The scope of my recusal, however, does not and cannot interfere with my ability to oversee the Department of Justice, including the FBI, which has an $8 billion budget and 35,000 employees. I presented to the President my concerns, and those of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, about the ongoing leadership issues at the FBI as stated in my letter recommending the removal of Mr. Comey along with the Deputy Attorney General’s memorandum, which have been released publicly by the White House. It is a clear statement of my views. It is absurd, frankly, to suggest that a recusal from a single specific investigation would render an Attorney General unable to manage the leadership of the various Department of Justice law enforcement components that conduct thousands of investigations.
Finally, during his testimony, Mr. Comey discussed a conversation he and I had about a meeting Mr. Comey had with the President. I am happy to share with the committee my recollection of the conversation I had with Mr. Comey. Following a routine morning threat briefing, Mr. Comey spoke to me and my Chief of Staff. While he did not provide me with any of the substance of his conversation with the President, Mr. Comey expressed concern about the proper communications protocol with the White House and with the President. I responded to his comment by agreeing that the FBI and Department of Justice needed to be careful to follow Department policies regarding appropriate contacts with the White House. Mr. Comey had served in the Department of Justice for the better part of two decades, and I was confident that Mr. Comey understood and would abide by the Department’s well-established rules governing any communications with the White House about ongoing investigations. My comments encouraged him to do just that and indeed, as I understand, he did. Our Department of Justice rules on proper communication between the Department and the White House have been in place for years. Mr. Comey well knew them, I thought, and assumed correctly that he complied with them.
I will finish with this. I recused myself from any investigation into the campaigns for President, but I did not recuse myself from defending my honor against scurrilous and false allegations. At all times throughout the course of the campaign, the confirmation process, and since becoming Attorney General, I have dedicated myself to the highest standards.
The people of this country expect an honest and transparent government and that is what we are giving them. This President wants to focus on the people of this country to ensure they are treated fairly and kept safe. The Trump agenda is to improve the lives of the American people. I know some have other agendas, but that is his agenda and it is one I share.
Importantly, as Attorney General I have a responsibility to enforce the laws of this Nation, to protect this country from its enemies, and to ensure the fair administration of justice. I intend to work every day with our fine team and the superb professionals in the Department of Justice to advance the important work we have to do. These false attacks, the innuendo, and the leaks, you can be sure, will not intimidate me. In fact, these events have only strengthened my resolve to fulfill my duty to reduce crime, and to support our federal, state, and local law enforcement officers who work our streets every day. Just last week, it was reported that overdose deaths in this country are rising faster than ever recorded. The murder rate is up over 10 percent—the largest increase since 1968. Together, we are telling the gangs, the cartels, the fraudsters, and the terrorists—we are coming after you. Every one of our citizens, no matter who they are or where they live, has the right to be safe in their homes and communities. And I will not be deterred, and I will not allow this great Department to be deterred from its vital mission.
Thank you.
# # #
Updated
Sessions' version of Oval Office meeting omits Trump order to clear room
Warner is asking about Comey’s idea that Sessions lingered in the Oval Office after the president directed him to leave, out of a sense of impropriety. Comey said Trump went on to direct him to shelve the Michael Flynn inquiry.
“We were there. I was standing there, and without revealing any conversation that took place... I did depart, I believe everyone else did depart, and Comey was sitting in front of the president’s desk and they were talking...” Sessions replies.
“He did not tell me any details about anything that was said that was improper...”
This clashes directly with Comey’s account of Trump ordering the others out and them lingering uncomfortably.
Sessions is back to the non-meeting with Kislyak at the Mayflower Hotel.
With regard to the two encounters, I came there not knowing that he was going to be there... I didn’t have any communications with him before or after that event.
Sessions says he can’t discuss conversations with the president.
“It’s longstanding policy of the department of justice not to comment on conversations the attorney general has had with the president of the United States...that really are founded in the coequal powers of the branches...
“I am not claiming executive privilege...”
Warner asks him whether he had heard of debate about potential pardons as the investigation moved forward.
“Without in any way suggesting that I have had any conversations about pardons... we have the right to have full and robust debate...and those arguments are not to be revealed...” Sessions sayd.
Warner hopes Sessions would agree that a presidential pardon during the investigation would be problematic.
Did you ever have a conversation about Comey’s supposed failure to perform with Comey?
“I did not.”
But you were his superior – why not raise those concerns?
“I did not do so. A memoranda was prepared by the deputy attorney general who evaluated his performance, noted some very serious problems with it... it’s something we both agreed to that a fresh start at the FBI was something...”
Sessions said he and Rosenstein had discussed it before either was confirmed.
Warner is up. Does Sessions have confidence in Mueller?
“I have confidence in Mr Mueller, but I am not going to discuss any hypotheticals...”
Does the president have confidence in Mueller?
“I have no idea, I’ve not talked to him about it.”
Will you commit to not taking action to fire Mueller?
“I think that I can say that with confidence because I’m recused from the investigation...”
Sessions tries to eat up time by talking but Warner interrupts him and makes him answer.
Sessions says he hasn’t been in touch with Mueller.
Burr now asks Sessions about being kicked out of the Oval Office. Sessions has admitted that Comey informed Sessions about how uncomfortable that was.
Did Comey express additional discomfort otherwise?
Sessions says it’s no big deal for the president to be in touch with the FBI director.
“There is nothing wrong with the president having communication... what is problematic is for any department employee... talking about any investigations...
“We strongly believed we needed to restore discipline...” and follow communications rules, Sessions said.
Sessions then attacks Comey:
“By his own admission, he said, there were as many as six such meetings [four with Trump, two with Obama]... so it’s not improper per se, but it’s not justified for a department official to share information about an investigation without prior review from above.”
Sessions is implying, isn’t he, that Comey violated department rules by informing Trump he was not under investigation.
Sessions says 'problematic' status, per Comey, had to do with department by-laws
Sessions is talking about his decision to recuse himself.
He says he did so in compliance with justice department rules. Which he proceeds to read. In short, you can’t oversee an investigation into a campaign or candidate if you were “a principal adviser.” Good rule!
“Many have suggested,” Sessions says, “That my recusal is because... I may have done something wrong. But this is the reason I recused myself... I should comply with the rules, obviously.”
Burr asked whether his legal counsel knew from day 1 that he would have to recuse himself.
Sessions says he has a timeline. “It became clear to me over time that I qualified as a principal-adviser-type person to the campaign and this applied to me,” he says.
Is this then what Comey meant about Sessions’ “problematic” situation that would lead to his recusing himself, Burr asks?
Sessions does not contradict Burr’s idea that that’s what Comey meant.
Updated
Burr is up first. He asks about the Mayflower hotel speech by Trump that both Sessions and Kislyak attended. The question is whether an undisclosed meeting between Sessions and Kislyak occurred there.
Sessions testified he did not remember Kislyak was there. “But I understand he was there... in fact I recently saw a video of him coming into the room,” Sessions says.
Sessions says he did not meet with Kislyak. He says the legislative director of his senate staff was there. Sessions says he attended the event to see what kind of foreign policy speech Trump could give.
The other meetings with Kislyak were in July at the convention and one in September in then-senator Sessions’ senate office.
Burr asks Sessions if he had any other meetings “with the Russians.”
“No, Mr Chairman, I’ve wracked my brain to make sure I could answer any of those questions correctly and no I did not.”
Sessions says his not bringing up the meetings earlier was a combination of memory oversight and not realizing the meetings were relevant.
Updated
Sessions closes with some stats about opioid overdoses (taken from the pages of the failing New York Times!) and says the criminals better look out because law enforcement is coming.
Sessions vows to 'defend my honor against scurrilous and false allegations'
While he recused himself from the Russia investigation, Sessions says, “I did not recuse myself from defending my honor against scurrilous and false allegations.”
Sessions defends role in firing Comey despite recusal
Now Sessions is on to his recusal.
“I was sworn in as AG on Thursday 9 February. The very next day, as I promised... I met with career department officials.. to discuss some things publicly reported... from that point, February 10 until I announced my formal recusal on March 2,” he was 1/ never briefed and 2/ did not access any information about the investigation, he says.
“I have no knowledge about this investigation as it is ongoing beyond that which has been reported publicly. I don’t even read that carefully.”
Sessions is showing some bluster here. He is seeking a forceful rebuttal of the air of wrongdoing.
“I recused myself not [because] of any [perceived] wrongdoing, but because of department regulation... Employees should not participate in an investigation of a campaign if they participated as a campaign adviser.”
Sessions says he stepped aside not because he had done anything wrong. But that he still had a duty to run the FBI – which, he concluded, involved firing Comey.
He said he shared his concerns about Comey with the president and Rosenstein.
“It is absurd frankly to suggest that a recusal from a single specific investigation would render the attorney general unable to conduct the leadership” of the department, he says. There are lots of investigations, thousands, he says.
Then on the question of Comey asking Sessions to stop the president from contacting Comey directly, Sessions says Comey “expressed concern about proper communications protocol with the White House and the president ... I responded by agreeing that the FBI and the Department of Justice needed to be careful... I was confident that he understood and would abide by well-established rules limiting communications with the White House.”
Updated
Sessions sharply denies collusion with Russia or perjury
Sessions says he appreciates the committee’s effort to investigate the Russia election tampering.
“I encourage any effort to get to the bottom” of the tampering, he says.
He says he will respond to questions “as fully as the Lord enables me to do so.”
But he will not “violate my duty” to keep certain conversations with the president confidential.
“I did not have any private meetings nor can I recall any conversations with any Russian officials at the Mayflower hotel,” Sessions says, right out of the gate. That is the scene of the purported third meeting between him and Kislyak.
“If any brief interaction occurred in passing, I do not remember it,” he says. “But whether I ever attended a reception where the Russian ambassador was also present, is beside the point...
“I have never met with or had any conversation with any Russian or foreign officials concerning any election or campaign in the United States...
“The suggestion that I participated in any collusion.. to hurt this country, which I have served with honor for 35 years... is an appalling and detestable lie.”
He denies that he perjured himself in his confirmation hearing. “Senator Franken asked me a rambling question after some six hours of testimony,” Sessions says. “...I was taken aback by that explosive allegation... I wanted to refute that immediately.”
He adds: “In that context my answer was a fair and correct response... I was responding to this allegation.”
Here’s Al Franken’s original question, and Sessions’ reply:
Updated
Warner points out that Sessions said at his confirmation hearings that he had had no communications with the Russians, when in fact he had. Warner hopes Sessions will provide diaries and calendars as evidence of the extent and limit of his meetings.
Warner then turns to Comey’s testimony last week, in which Comey expressed concern that Trump would lie about their meetings and that Trump fired him over the Russia inquiry.
“You recused yourself from the Russia investigations, yet you participated in the firing of Mr Comey over the handling of that same investigation,” Warner says.
He also wants to know about Sessions being kicked out of the Oval Office to talk with Comey one-on-one. Also has Sessions seen any contacts or pressure from the White House on the intelligence community with regard to the Russia inquiry?
Warner wants to know what Sessions is doing about the Russian election tampering. And his final concern is the refusal of public officials to answer questions about unclassified material in public settings.
Sessions stands for his oath.
Updated
Vice-chairman Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia, is up. He says thanks to Sessions for coming.
But he expresses concern that Sessions was originally scheduled to testify before the House and Senate Appropriations committee.
“I believe he should also answer questions for both of those committees, and the judiciary committee as well.”
Warner says today’s testimony is “just the beginning of our interaction with you.”
Warner makes it clear that Sessions requested to speak with the committee today. Warner hopes that cooperation will be sustained.
Senate Russia inquiry has interviewed 35 individuals
Burr says that in its Russia inquiry the committee has interviewed 35 individuals including former homeland security secretary (under Obama) Jeh Johnson.
Chairman Richard Burr, the Republican from North Carolina, says the committee recognizes the “gravity of our investigation” into Russia but at the same time is keeping up its oversight of the intelligence community.
“I’ve said repeatedly that I do not believe what the committee does should be done in public, but I also recognize the gravity of the current investigation... it is for that reason that the committee has now held its 10th open hearing of 2017.”
Burr complained about this last week too. That the work of his committee is on public view.
Here now is Sessions. He swoops in for a kiss from his wife, Mary, on the way to his chair. Shakes hands with the committee leaders and takes a seat.
Updated
We remember getting pretty pumped for some of those Snowden-era James Clapper / Keith Alexander / John Brennan episodes... but fair enough:
America has gotten pumped for more congressional hearings in the last ten days than in the last ten years.
— Matthew Nussbaum (@MatthewNussbaum) June 13, 2017
Your senators are taking their seats. At least Marco Rubio is.
Room is hushed. Any moment now.
We’ve told you what questions for Sessions we’d like to hear.
How about you? What would you ask the AG?
Here’s a refresher on his January confirmation hearing:
Hello and welcome to our live blog coverage of attorney general Jeff Sessions’ testimony before the Senate select committee on intelligence. It’s the same committee that questioned former FBI director James Comey last week.
Sessions takes the hot seat at 2.30pm ET. We’ll have a live video stream atop the blog.
Sessions is on Capitol Hill today to answer questions about the firing of Comey last month and about ties between the Donald Trump presidential campaign and Russian government operatives.
What makes this outing by Sessions so interesting? He’s a major figure in the intertwined Russia and Comey affairs, and his public story has changed enough that two Democratic senators have already accused him of possibly committing perjury, during his January confirmation hearing, by failing to own up to his own contacts with Russian operatives.
Questions we’d like to hear:
– Can you describe being kicked out of the Oval Office by Trump so that that the president could speak alone with Comey?
Trump has denied he told Comey that he hoped the FBI could lay off former national security adviser Michael Flynn. It would interesting to know whether Sessions backs up Comey’s account of the scene in other respects.
“My sense was the attorney general knew he shouldn’t be leaving, which is why he was lingering,” Comey testified last Thursday.
– How many times did you meet with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak before the election?
During his 10 January confirmation hearing, Sessions said, “I did not have communications with the Russians.”
On 1 March, the Washington Post reported that Sessions had in fact met with Kislyak twice.
When the Post story broke, Sessions’ spokespeople said he did not consider the conversations relevant to the lawmakers’ questions. “There was absolutely nothing misleading about his answer,” said a spokeswoman. But in response to the criticism he recused himself from the Russia investigation.
More recent reports have suggested that there was a third undisclosed meeting.
– What was Comey referring to in this exchange from his testimony?
WYDEN: Let me turn to the Attorney General. In your statement, you said that you and the FBI leadership team decided not to discuss the president’s actions with Attorney General Sessions, even though he had not recused himself.
What was it about the Attorney General’s own interactions with the Russians, or his behavior with regard to the investigation, that would have led the entire leadership of the FBI to make this decision?
COMEY: Our judgment, as I recall, was that he was very close to and inevitably going to recuse himself for a variety of reasons. We also were aware of facts that I can’t discuss in an open setting that would make his continued engagement in a Russia-related investigation problematic.
And so we were — we were convinced — and, in fact, I think we had already heard that the career people were recommending that he recuse himself — that he was not going to be in contact with Russia- related matters much longer, and that turned out to be the case.
– Did Comey ask you not to let the president contact him directly?
Disturbed by the president’s habit of contacting him directly with requests such as asking him to announce that Trump was not under investigation, Comey said he asked Sessions to tell the president to stop doing that.
“I talked to him and said, “You have to be between me and the president, and that’s incredibly important,” and I forget my exact words,” Comey testified.
– What was your role in Comey’s firing, given your supposed “recusal” from the Russia inquiry?
As mentioned above, Sessions “recused” himself from the Russia inquiry after his undisclosed meetings with Kislyak came to light. But when Comey, who was in charge of the investigation, was fired, there was Sessions once again, front and center with a letter to the president saying “a fresh start is needed at the leadership of the FBI.”
Senate minority leader Chuck Schemer said on Monday, “Recommending director Comey’s firing would seem to be a violation of his recusal, and attorney general Sessions needs to answer for that.”
Read our news coverage:
Updated
