Sessions denies meetings and talks with Russians, disagrees with some Comey details

AG Jeff Sessions

Sessions denies meetings and talks with Russians, disagrees with some Comey details
American Bar Association (ABA)
By Terry Carter
Posted Jun 13, 2017 07:18 pm CDT

Speaking under oath for roughly 2 1/2 hours during a hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions denied having any substantive meetings or discussions with Russian officials outside of his duties as a senator while he was involved in President Donald Trump’s election campaign.

Sessions also repeatedly parried questions seeking information on some of his discussions with the president and disagreed with some details given to the same committee less than a week ago in testimony by former FBI director James Comey, also under oath.

Several Democrats on the committee repeatedly pressed Sessions to divulge details of some of his conversations with Trump, such as when the president was preparing to fire Comey. Sessions replied that it is "longstanding policy" in the Department of Justice not to do so.

Sessions made clear more than once that he was not claiming executive privilege for himself, but rather that he was protecting the president’s right, "if he chooses," to later assert the privilege.

When he was accused by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., of stonewalling, Sessions disagreed and said, "I’m following historic policies of the Department of Justice. You don’t walk into any committee meeting and reveal confidential communications with the president of the United States."

Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., peppered Sessions with a series of questions in an attempt to get him to explain the DOJ policy itself, at one point asking, "Is it in writing?" Sessions replied "I think so," and said he had discussed it with his staff.

"Did you not ask your staff to show you the policy that is the basis for your refusal?" Harris pressed on. Sessions replied that they had talked about it and about the principle of executive privilege.

There were no fireworks in the line of questions concerning Sessions’ meetings with Russian officials. Prior to his confirmation hearing in January, Sessions had not listed meetings with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak last July at the Republican convention in Cleveland, and again in September in then-Sen. Sessions’ office. The former Alabama senator subsequently said he had been advised by staff and in the FBI background check for his nomination not to list meetings with foreign officials that were part of his senatorial duties.

On Tuesday, Sessions was asked about a third meeting – or a possible meeting – with Kislyak in April 2016 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C., reported by the Washington Post in early March.

Sessions said when that story broke – and again Tuesday – that he has no recollection of even seeing Kislyak at that gathering hosted by the Center for National Interest, which invited people engaged in foreign policy matters, journalists and several ambassadors. Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., when questioning Sessions on Tuesday, read an email from the Center about the brief reception at the event featuring about two dozen guests and a receiving line. It stated that the arrangement meant conversations were brief and not private, and that it’s unlikely any meaningful conversation could occur without drawing attention.

That possibility of a meeting between Kislyak and Sessions at the Mayflower had taken on potentially new meaning last Thursday when Comey said there were a number of reasons Sessions had to recuse himself in the Russia investigation, but that he could only discuss the matter in a closed hearing. Some believed Comey was hinting that Sessions’ meeting with Russians was problematic and contributed to his recusal in the investigation. That didn’t pan out.

"I may have had an encounter" with Kislyak at the hotel, Sessions testified, though said he had no recollection of it and knows that Kislyak was there only because he has subsequently seen video of the ambassador entering the event.

THE OVAL OFFICE MEETING

Other questioning probed the differing recollections between Comey and Sessions over a February meeting in the Oval Office with the president and several others – including Sessions– when Trump asked all to leave the room except Comey. The former FBI director testified that the president spoke to him about the investigation of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, telling him "I hope you can let this go."

Comey testified last week that he spoke with Sessions day after that meeting and told him he was not comfortable being alone with the president in that situation. Comey said Sessions said nothing, and that his body language indicated that there was nothing he could do about it.

The Justice Department subsequently issued a statement saying that Sessions had replied to Comey, telling him that the FBI and DOJ needed to heed policy in such matters. Sessions noted in his testimony Tuesday that Comey had previously been deputy attorney general.

Sessions said, "I think he’s incorrect," and added that he felt Comey had been in the DOJ for so long that he "knew those policies probably a good deal better than I do."

Sessions said his chief of staff was also in that conversation, and that Comey "mentioned no facts of any kind, didn’t mention that he’d been asked to do anything that was improper."

Comey testified that he didn’t mention details to Sessions because he expected the attorney general would soon recuse himself from the investigation that includes a probe of Flynn.

Sessions was asked by Sen. Harris if he would commit to providing the committee with all pertinent written documents, such as his notes. Sessions replied he would commit to reviewing DOJ’s rules and "responding appropriately." Read more

Did Comey violate privilege by leaking memo? Trump's lawyer will reportedly file complaint

ABA Journal online

Did Comey violate privilege by leaking memo? Trump's lawyer will reportedly file complaint
American Bar Association (ABA)
By Debra Cassens Weiss
Posted Jun 09, 2017 10:30 am CDT

President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer is targeting fired FBI director James Comey over his revelation on Thursday that he gave a memo summarizing a meeting with the president to a friend so he could give it the press.

Trump lawyer Marc Kasowitz will reportedly file a complaint over the leaked memo, report NBC News, CNN, Fox News and Reuters. The stories are based on an anonymous source. According to Reuters, Kasowitz will file a complaint with the Justice Department’s inspector general and will make a "submission" to the Senate Judiciary and Senate Intelligence committees.

But the memo leak does not appear to be illegal or to violate executive privilege, according to University of Texas law professor Steve Vladeck in a Washington Post article. Other experts interviewed by the Los Angeles Times and ABC News agree with that view.

CNN also points out that the Justice Department has limited jurisdiction over former employees. If the department finds wrongdoing it can make a note in Comey’s file to be used if he seeks employment there in the future.

Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee that he gave a memo summarizing one of his meetings with Trump to a law professor and asked him to give it to a reporter. Comey said he wanted the memo released "because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel."

Comey leaked the memo after his May 9 firing and after a Trump tweet three days later that read, "James Comey better hope that there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!" Comey said the tweet led him to believe he needed to get the information out in the "public square."

A story later appeared in the New York Times, based on a Comey memo, about Trump allegedly telling Comey he hoped he could let go of the investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s contacts with Russian officials.

Kasowitz said in a statement released after Comey’s testimony that Comey had "unilaterally and surreptitiously made unauthorized disclosures to the press of privileged communications with the president." Kasowitz said the New York Times had been quoting from Comey’s memos while he was still FBI director. He also said that Comey admitted giving to his friends the memos of conversations, one of which was classified.

But Comey said he gave one memo to the law professor—apparently the one about the Flynn conversation—and he was careful not to put any classified information into the memo, Slate points out.

"I remember thinking, ‘This is a very disturbing development,’" Comey had testified. "If I write it in such a way that I don’t include anything that would trigger classification, that would make it easier for us to discuss within the FBI and the government and to hold on to it in a way that makes it accessible to us."

In his Washington Post piece, Vladeck says Comey’s memo isn’t covered by executive privilege and, even if it were, disclosing it without authorization isn’t illegal.

Executive privilege serves to protect against compelled disclosure of confidential executive branch communications, and it is meant to shield against a court order or congressional subpoena, he says.

The privilege "is not a sword, though," Vladeck writes. "So where a current or former government employee wants to cooperate and turn over the requested information, the privilege itself won’t—and can’t—stop him or her."

And voluntary disclosure is not illegal, Vladeck says. Federal law bars unauthorized disclosure relating to national defense or that has pecuniary value to the United States, and neither applies when information in the memo is unclassified.

Vladeck adds that Trump "has almost certainly waived any potential privilege claim" by acknowledging the existence and substance of the discussions. And if the privilege weren’t waived, any interest in confidentiality can be outweighed by the value of disclosure when it has some bearing on criminal cases.

And that means Trump likely could not successfully claim executive privilege to avoid releasing tapes of the conversations, if he has any, Vladeck says.

Though Comey’s disclosure of unclassified information isn’t illegal, that doesn’t mean it is appropriate, Vladeck says.

"Not for the first time, it appears that Comey took it upon himself to breach important norms governing the conduct of senior law enforcement officials—an offense that, perhaps ironically, would have unquestionably justified his termination, if he hadn’t already been fired before doing it," he writes. Read more

Missing word added to third paragraph at 12:20 p.m.

Attorney General Sessions to testify in an open hearing before Senate Intelligence Committee

Attorney General Jeff Sessions

Attorney General Sessions to testify in an open hearing before Senate Intelligence Committee
American Bar Association (ABA)
By Debra Cassens Weiss
Posted Jun 12, 2017 10:40 am CDT

Attorney General Jeff Sessions will testify in an open hearing when he goes before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday afternoon.

Sessions is expected to field questions about his contacts with Russian officials last year and his recusal into any investigation into the presidential campaign, report the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the Hill and Politico. He may also be asked whether he was involved in the decision to fire FBI director James Comey.

Sessions recused himself in March following revelations that he met twice last year with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, but didn’t disclose the meetings during his confirmation hearing.

Comey referenced the recusal in his own Senate Intelligence Committee testimony last Thursday.

"We were aware of facts I can’t discuss in an open setting that would make his continued involvement in a Russia investigation problematic," Comey said.

Comey also said it was a "reasonable question" whether Sessions was involved in Trump’s decision to fire him on May 9.

Sessions announced he wanted to testify in public in a statement released on Monday.

"The attorney general has requested that this hearing be public. He believes it is important for the American people to hear the truth directly from him and looks forward to answering the committee’s questions tomorrow." Read online