Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions vs. the Senate Intelligence Committee

[Attorney General Jeff Sessions has agreed to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee!

](http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SESSIONS_CONGRESS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-06-10-21-47-11)Public or private?

And what will he say?

Looks like General Beauregard is trying to retreat.

He’ll say everything is swell, your so-called government will wipe the dust off their hands and say “well, glad that’s behind us now” and the Republicans will continue to strip your country for parts.

… and he has cancelled the hearing.

https://thinkprogress.org/amp/p/f8874373e4f?gi=df7725524b2e

Guess he lawyered up.

Anyone on the Trump side with two brain cells to rub together* will stay as far away from those hearing (and the related investigations) as they possibly can. As David Brooks noted on the PBS News Hour Friday, the Whitewater investigation went on for 7 years.

*Yeah, I know.

JohnT, the article you linked is about how Atty. Gen. Sessions will not be testifying before the House and Senate Appropriations subcommittees; Assistant AG Rod Rosenstein will testify in his stead (which is mentioned in the text I quoted in the OP).

AFAIK, Sessions is still scheduled to speak before the SIC next week.

When I started this thread, I didn’t want to quote a wall of text and so I didn’t post this bit:

Gotcha. I was wondering how you and I could be reading two different things from the same action. My bad.

No worries, JohnT. BTW, I found this in the article you linked to:

He’s gonna say “I thought you already knew I was lying after the first time I told you I didn’t meet with the Russians. Are we going to have to do this every time?”.

I see on the AP now that AG Sessions is scheduled to testify Tuesday; still no definitive word on whether it will be public or private testimony. I’m keeping my fingers crossed that it’s public.

[At least one Senator thinks AG Sessions testimony should be public:

](http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TRUMP_RUSSIA_PROBE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-06-12-03-55-26)
I’m guessing that we’ll find out later today which it’ll be.

I think it should be private. Not because it’s anything secret, but because any time you have a bunch of politicians conducting a hearing in public their entire focus becomes saying things that get them on TV and/or which they can use for their political campaigns. (You saw this with the Comey hearings, especially K. Harris, who reeled off a whole bunch of “questions” that she knew Comey wasn’t going to answer, and she barely paused for him to decline to do so.)

I think Sessions has an obligation to testify to Congress, but does not have an obligation to allow himself to be used a political prop.

That’s gotta be the most ridiculous reason I’ve ever heard for testimony to be given in private.

We’ve probably heard the last public words from Jeff Sessions beyond ‘no comment’ and ‘I want to invoke the 5th’

[Open it is!

](http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TRUMP_RUSSIA_PROBE_THE_LATEST?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-06-12-11-22-18)

Mistake, IMO. Expect a bunch of political posturing from all questioners.

If I were him I would insist on closed session (if possible) and then repeat my testimony to the public afterwards.

I’ve been wondering this ever since Comey’s testimony: why not both? Good ol’ boy Jeff could get his public showing and the SIC could gut him in private.

I’m confused, too. I would think there would have to be private hearing, too.

He knows his boss will inevitably contradict his testimony so he’s covering his ass by getting that testimony out to the public ASAP.

Well, blow me down. I wonder if he’s retained a lawyer?