I suppose you could call it “disingenuous” if you believe that that’s not the real reason for his refusal to answer those questions. But there’s no reason to assume that other than your pre-existing assumption that he’s a liar. Me, I think the reason he gave is most likely the actual reason - because Trump would be seriously ticked if he revealed his conversations (especially certain ones) without him having cleared it first. So it’s not disingenuous at all.
What it is, is somewhat legally tenuous. If you look at the GQ thread I opened asking about it, I linked to an article from the WP in which they quoted conflicting views from various legal people as to whether Sessions is justified in taking that stance. (Some further discussion here.) But taking a legally tenuous stance is not the same thing as being disingenuous and has nothing to do with integrity. (I would note FWIW that the Obama administration took a pretty hard line approach to executive privilege WRT the Fast & Furious probe, and were eventually overruled by a judge. That says something about that administration IMO, but not about their integrity specifically.)
No, that’s not the point.
The issue was whether Sessions omitting mention of meeting with the Russian ambassador is proof that he “lied” about it, or whether it’s something that didn’t come to mind, especially given the context of the question. The McCaskill incident is being brought up as evidence as to that issue.
Many people have expressed skepticism as to whether it’s likely or even possible that Sessions would have momentarily forgotten those incidents. But McCaskill was in a pretty similar position as Sessions. A US Senator, having met with an ambassador, and then emphatically (in her case) denying having ever done so. It’s pretty unlikely that she knowingly lied about it, because she looked pretty foolish when the truth came out and she didn’t gain all that much from her initial statement so as to make the risk worthwhile. So the overwhelming likelihood is that the meeting momentarily slipped her mind, especially as the context of the meeting was very dissimilar to the sinister-seeming “Meeting With The Russians :eek:” being attributed to the Trump people; in that context her own meetings simply didn’t come to mind at the time.
And the same applies to Sessions.
This is really a very simple matter, and it’s incredible that so many people are purporting to not grasp it.
But I don’t think that’s his stated reason – his stated reason was to give the President a chance to use executive privilege. I don’t find that a credible reason, since the President has always had that option.
I think you might be right that he didn’t answer because he was worried Trump might be pissed (as well as the possibility that the answers would reflect poorly on both Sessions and Trump). But to me that’s very different than his stated answer.
So I call it disiengenuous because I don’t believe that his real reason was to give the President a chance to use executive privilege, or to “assert it if he chooses” – it’s not credible to me that Sessions believed that the President didn’t already have that option.
I think you’ve just pointed out Session’s real motivation. Sessions’ had just offered to resign over a disagreement with the yam, so he knows full well Trump has a temper when crossed. Sessions’ knows people get fired for not telling the yam what he wants to hear. He’s is in defense mode.
If Sessions reveals the conversation in a response to a question at the hearing, then the president no longer has the option of using executive privilege. The cat is out of the bag. Sessions said that it’s possible that such-and-such conversation is one that Trump might assert EP about, and until he knows Trump’s position he’s not going to reveal it.
These mean the exact same thing. “The president doesn’t want me to disclosure what we said at this conversation” is the exact same thing as an assertion of executive privilege. “Executive privilege” as a concept simply means the right that a president has to maintain this preference.
In this case Sessions is saying he doesn’t know for sure whether Trump wants to assert that right WRT certain specific conversations, but he might so he’s holding back.
It’s not credible to me that Sessions “doesn’t know for sure whether Trump wants to assert that right WRT certain specific conversations”. Do you find it credible? I don’t think it’s likely that Sessions didn’t speak to Trump, or Trump’s lawyers, in preparation for this testimony.
And based on the testimony, it’s pretty clear to me that Trump doesn’t want to assert executive privilege, because he or his lawyers are worried this would make him look guilty, so they came up with this weird double-secret non-executive executive privilege thing as a way to both avoid answering the questions and avoid asserting executive privilege.
Do you have a better explanation? I suppose it’s possible that they all just winged it, and Sessions didn’t prep or consult with Trump’s people at all, but that seems to me to be extremely unlikely.
I don’t know. That itself might violate some sort of ethics rules, for all I know. (ISTM that Sessions has acted independently of Trump for the most part; he enraged Trump by recusing himself without consulting with or informing him.)
But even if he did, I don’t think Sessions could anticipate every question, and it’s unlikely that they would have done some sort of pre-debate prep in rehearsing answers to every conceivable question.
But isn’t it highly likely that they would have discussed which conversations between Sessions and Trump, or which topics in general, Sessions should try to avoid answering?
Again, I don’t know if Sessions discussed his upcoming testimony with Trump altogether. And even if he did, I doubt if it got to that level of detail. If you have any specific reason to believe otherwise, let me know.
Perhaps people who are familiar with SOP for cabinet officials testifying can comment here.
Trump is on record as saying he would not use EP with Comey - who is a ‘showboat, grandstander and disgruntled fired employee’.
Why would he use it with Sessions? Who is a current, favored, employee and ‘really good guy’ ??/
It defies logic because Sessions was simply refusing to answer questions and looking to sound like he had a plausible excuse when he had none - and he’s being called on it.
Comey wanted to testify and Trump asserting EP in that instance would have been forcing him to refrain from testifying, which would have been a messy and public fight. Sessions, by contrast, is a current member of the administration and ally of Trump, and it’s easier in his case.
But beyond that, there were various considerations involved in the Comey case that don’t come into play in the Sessions case, e.g. that Comey is a private citizen, that Trump has publically discussed some of these conversation (Sessions was willing to discuss matters which were already public) etc. See e.g. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-factbox-idUSKBN18T1OB
‘Principally Republican actors?’ You mean like Hillary?
Democrats do what? Lie? No shit, really? Collude with Russians? Feel free to initiate an investigation.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the point. The ‘she jumped off a bridge before me’ defense is never true.
I have no idea what connection you’re trying to make here. One needs to know exactly what happened in order to decide what to do about it (unless, of course, one happens to be Trump).
And still, it has absolutely nothing to do with Sessions lying. I don’t buy that he didn’t remember for a second. Just flat-out not credible. What I want to know is what he was (and is) covering up.
He wouldn’t have a deputy attorney general. It’d be the Thursday night massacre (because ratings are better on Thursday night). His base isn’t important here. They’d eat his shit if given the opportunity, and frequently do. It’s the supposedly ‘normal’ middle-of-the-road folks who might finally get that their rationalizations for supporting him are, in the main, utterly false.
The time to assert EP is before Sessions was asked any questions. This is akin to a poker player seeing another player’s cards before he decides whether to not to ante up. It’s wrong.
So, now that sessions is aware of what conversations the senators are interested in asking questions about, would it not make sense for him to now go to trump, and ask whether those should be covered under ep?
I don’t know that I agree with the idea that a conversation is covered by EP until it is known that it is not, I actually though it went the other way, that EP had to be asserted in order to protect a conversation, but going with that, doesn’t the administration at some point have to actually declare that those conversations should be covered by EP?
Or do you feel that they can actually just leave it in limbo forever like that, not exerting EP, but holding the right to assert it later, if they want to?
Haven’t seen anyone mention the lobbyist for Russian interests yet. Now, this was a “I don’t believe so” answer from Sessions, but a lobbyist for Russian interests was at two dinners that had groups of former Republican foreign party officials (lobbyist is a former ambassador) with Sessions. Him being at the dinner isn’t that suspicious to me, because he is, indeed, a former Republican ambassador. And we don’t know how much direct interaction they had at those dinners. But Sessions should have reported it (and if he’s getting foreign policy advice, he should know the man’s current job).
This lobbyist also advised Trump on his first major foreign policy speech and the article says that would have brought him into personal contact with Sessions. That sounds and looks bad. It may not be, but it certainly leaves a bad impression, given all the other Russia things being discussed/investigated/revealed. But Trump’s done fine with things that look bad before, and Sessions wiggle-room on his actions might be well enough. Just have to wait and see.
I just saw this. I agree that it leaves a bad impression, especially about Sessions’ honesty, even if it’s probably not particularly suspicious on its own.
Trump fans must be tying themselves into mental knots–even more than has become usual for them–in order to spin Sessions’ unconvincing memory lapses into a triumph of Showing Them Democrats Who’s Boss. “I don’t recall,” over and over and over again, is tough to re-see as a portrait in courage and cunning.
I have no doubt that they are laboring mightily to see it that way–but the effort has to be draining.
At some point, being a Trump defender is going to become just too much damn work.