Ron Wyden’s Question About What Comey Meant by ‘Problematic’ Throws Sessions off the Deep End
There were many big moments in the testimony, but none bigger than when Wyden simply asked Sessions what Comey meant:
Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Tuesday got testy about “secret innuendo” that has called his honesty into question.
“Mr. Comey said that there were matters with respect to the recusal that were problematic and he couldn’t talk about them. What are they?” Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) asked Sessions, referring to fired FBI Director James Comey’s testimony last week before the Senate Intelligence Committee.
“Why don’t you tell me? There are none, Sen. Wyden. There are none, I can tell you that for absolute certainty,” Sessions fired back. “This is a secret innuendo being leaked out there about me and I don’t appreciate it.”
Sessions tends to have his own idiosyncratic definition for everything. A recusal on Russia that means he still gets to fire the guy investigating Russia, he claims he wasn’t at the Mayflower Hotel because he was a campaign official but because he was real interested in what Trump would say in his first foreign policy speech of his campaign.
But no, he wasn’t a campaign official just a guy who helps Trump in the campaign, interested in watching him make a campaign speech. You see the difference?
“Though Sessions had already been appointed chairman of the Trump campaign’s national security advisory board a month before the event, he claimed during Tuesday’s hearing that he attended the Mayflower event neither as a senator nor a Trump campaign representative, but an “interested person.”
“It was an interesting time for me to observe his delivery and the message he would make. That was my main purpose of being there,” he said.
Neither as a Senator nor as a campaign chairman but an ‘interested person.’
He refused to answer questions but on the other hand it’s not because it was regarding classified information or that Trump had declared classified info-no. No Jeff Sessions just personally feels that it’s inappropriate to answer. There is no legal basis for this feeling whatsoever, but details.
“You just don’t get to refuse to answer questions before a Senate committee because you don’t want to, or because you think you might get the president* in Dutch, or because you don’t like the people asking the questions. The Bartleby defense—”I would prefer not to…”—has no basis in constitutional or criminal law. There is no, as Senator Martin Heinrich put it to JeffBo, “appropriateness bucket” in which the attorney general can hide himself. Yet, there he was at the end of things, being flattered by the committee’s chairman, Richard Burr, Republican of North Carolina, for the immense sacrifice JeffBo had made in coming in and being transparently ridiculous on camera for a couple of hours.”
Sessions also has his own very strange definition of ‘secret innuendo.’ He acted as if Wyden was making something up when he was simply repeating Comey’s words and asking what he may have meant.
As for the Mayflower Hotel, Sessions is all over the place-and committed perjury-probably multiple times. He comes in full of outrage and denies ‘That I had any private meeting with Russians as best as I can remember.’
But ‘As best as I can remember’ kind of cuts off such pious indignant outrage off at the knees:
“In his opening statement, Sessions broadly declared: “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.”
“But later, when questioned by Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), Sessions said that “it’s conceivable that [a conversation with Kislyak] occurred” but that it included “nothing improper.”
“Then, in response to questions from Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO), Sessions said: “I didn’t have any formal meeting with him. I’m confident of that. But I may have had an encounter during the reception.”
Ok, so it included ‘nothing improper.’ What did you talk about?
“I have no recollection of a discussion with the Russian ambassador,” Sessions later added, though he allowed such a discussion may have occurred.”
So it may have happened though you don’t remember what happened though whatever it was, it wasn’t improper.
P.S. As noted in previous post, the Gravis poll is out and it shows me, your buddy and humble blogger, Mike Sax, up 51 percent to 41% for Peter King in NY 2. I know-knock me over with a feather too. But that’s what the numbers say.
Recall, my previous poll in March had me down 11-which seemed good at the time as King has won 13 straight elections by 20, 30, 40 points every year since 1992.
This latest certainly suggests King has vulnerabilities and that they are interested in my issues.
If you support my run please donate.
We can have a Dem Congress, we must have a Dem Cogress, and we will.
There is nothing more important in getting answers to Trump-Russia collusion than a Democratic House in 2019. Please donate to help me in my part of the effort to fight for a Dem House.
Thank you. We must have a Dem House. And so, we will.