1
00:00:00,080 --> 00:00:04,640
Speaker 1: Former FBI Director James Comey's testimony last Thursday garnered headlines

2
00:00:04,720 --> 00:00:07,880
Speaker 1: through the weekend the weekend this week, it's the highest

3
00:00:07,920 --> 00:00:10,880
Speaker 1: law enforcement official in the country will be testifying before

4
00:00:10,920 --> 00:00:14,480
Speaker 1: the Senate Intelligence Committee. Attorney General Jeff Sessions will be

5
00:00:14,520 --> 00:00:17,799
Speaker 1: in for some tough questioning tomorrow about the extent of

6
00:00:17,840 --> 00:00:21,360
Speaker 1: his contacts with Russian officials, his involvement in the firing

7
00:00:21,400 --> 00:00:25,400
Speaker 1: of Comey, and questions of perjury, and Sessions has requested

8
00:00:25,440 --> 00:00:28,320
Speaker 1: that his testimony be a public hearing. A little over

9
00:00:28,360 --> 00:00:31,760
Speaker 1: a week ago, Democratic Senators Patrick Leahy and Alf Franken

10
00:00:31,800 --> 00:00:35,960
Speaker 1: revealed they had asked then FBI Director Comey to investigate

11
00:00:36,040 --> 00:00:40,960
Speaker 1: Sessions for perjury stemming from his confirmation hearing testimony. Democratic

12
00:00:41,040 --> 00:00:43,720
Speaker 1: Senator Richard Blumenthal has said if there is proof that

13
00:00:43,840 --> 00:00:48,040
Speaker 1: Sessions had a third meeting with Russian Ambassador Sergey kiss Leak,

14
00:00:48,200 --> 00:00:54,120
Speaker 1: he should resign. He testified falsely, he then corrected the

15
00:00:54,160 --> 00:00:58,880
Speaker 1: record under oath, so this failure to disclose would be

16
00:00:58,960 --> 00:01:04,360
Speaker 1: in effect a second instance of non truthfulness and I

17
00:01:04,360 --> 00:01:08,160
Speaker 1: believe would require his resignation. Our guests are two professors

18
00:01:08,200 --> 00:01:12,840
Speaker 1: from Fordham Law School, Andrew Kent and Jed Sugarman. Andrew

19
00:01:13,000 --> 00:01:16,639
Speaker 1: Sessions was originally scheduled appear before the House and Senate

20
00:01:16,680 --> 00:01:21,120
Speaker 1: Appropriation Subcommittee. He decided he wanted to appear before the

21
00:01:21,160 --> 00:01:24,800
Speaker 1: Senate Intelligence Committee, and he also decided that he wanted

22
00:01:24,800 --> 00:01:28,880
Speaker 1: it to be public testimony. Is that a surprise to you.

23
00:01:30,200 --> 00:01:33,480
Speaker 1: Sessions as apparently canceled three times on going back to

24
00:01:33,520 --> 00:01:37,199
Speaker 1: the Hill ever since his confirmation hearing, reportedly because he's

25
00:01:37,319 --> 00:01:40,920
Speaker 1: been concerned about getting grilled by Democrats about his misstatements

26
00:01:40,959 --> 00:01:43,880
Speaker 1: about Russia. Um. What what I read was that he

27
00:01:43,920 --> 00:01:47,400
Speaker 1: had he had initially asked for the Intelligence Committee session

28
00:01:47,400 --> 00:01:50,640
Speaker 1: today to be closed, but the pressure from Democrats on

29
00:01:50,680 --> 00:01:52,920
Speaker 1: the committee led it to be an open one. UM.

30
00:01:53,000 --> 00:01:55,920
Speaker 1: So I think he probably would rather not testify publicly,

31
00:01:56,480 --> 00:01:59,120
Speaker 1: but it looks like he's going to have to. And

32
00:01:59,240 --> 00:02:04,400
Speaker 1: Jed start with the encounters with the Russians. And you

33
00:02:04,520 --> 00:02:08,000
Speaker 1: heard what Senator Blumenthal said. He had told lawmakers that

34
00:02:08,120 --> 00:02:11,360
Speaker 1: his January confirmation hearing that he hadn't met with the Russians.

35
00:02:11,639 --> 00:02:14,880
Speaker 1: Then he corrected his testimony. Now there are questions about

36
00:02:14,960 --> 00:02:19,920
Speaker 1: possible additional encounters. Is it perjury if he did have

37
00:02:20,000 --> 00:02:23,440
Speaker 1: additional encounters? Well, I think it I think it. I

38
00:02:23,480 --> 00:02:26,280
Speaker 1: actually think it was perjury and false testimony. Back in January,

39
00:02:26,639 --> 00:02:29,000
Speaker 1: if you look at the sequence of events of precisely

40
00:02:29,040 --> 00:02:32,160
Speaker 1: what happened in January, he was first asked by Senator

41
00:02:32,160 --> 00:02:36,919
Speaker 1: Franken a general question about Russian contacts of the campaign,

42
00:02:36,960 --> 00:02:40,280
Speaker 1: and he changed He answered a question he wasn't asked,

43
00:02:40,360 --> 00:02:43,800
Speaker 1: which is to say he didn't have any Russian contacts. Now,

44
00:02:44,360 --> 00:02:47,120
Speaker 1: then what happened was he had an opportunity to and

45
00:02:47,160 --> 00:02:49,160
Speaker 1: if it happens all the time, people will look at

46
00:02:49,160 --> 00:02:51,920
Speaker 1: their testimony and said, you know what, I said something misleading.

47
00:02:52,120 --> 00:02:54,840
Speaker 1: He had that opportunity, and in fact, Senator lay He

48
00:02:54,919 --> 00:02:57,799
Speaker 1: asked him a question, did you have any meetings about

49
00:02:57,840 --> 00:03:02,000
Speaker 1: the campaign? The sixteen campaign? And he just answered flatly no.

50
00:03:02,360 --> 00:03:05,320
Speaker 1: And it turns out that it was only by stretching

51
00:03:05,360 --> 00:03:09,560
Speaker 1: by by UM I think misinterpreting those questions that he

52
00:03:09,680 --> 00:03:12,600
Speaker 1: is able to um make any kind of claim that

53
00:03:12,639 --> 00:03:14,360
Speaker 1: he didn't lie. I think when you take those two

54
00:03:14,400 --> 00:03:17,560
Speaker 1: events together, he already misrepresented. So let me say that

55
00:03:17,680 --> 00:03:20,560
Speaker 1: one is a question of perjury, but there's another statute

56
00:03:20,560 --> 00:03:23,760
Speaker 1: for false statements and false testimony, and those are two

57
00:03:23,800 --> 00:03:27,600
Speaker 1: different um criminal violations. I think it's clear that he's

58
00:03:27,600 --> 00:03:31,560
Speaker 1: given false testimony already. So this third question, I think

59
00:03:31,960 --> 00:03:34,920
Speaker 1: the come not puts him in even greater legal jeopardy.

60
00:03:35,000 --> 00:03:38,200
Speaker 1: He's already made a false statement, hasn't and failed to

61
00:03:38,840 --> 00:03:42,160
Speaker 1: change it in time. This third meeting, Uh, it really

62
00:03:42,200 --> 00:03:45,360
Speaker 1: puts him in intense scrutiny for a much clear case

63
00:03:45,400 --> 00:03:50,200
Speaker 1: of perjury and false testimony. And Andrew, some of the

64
00:03:50,280 --> 00:03:54,520
Speaker 1: senators are really focused on what he had to do

65
00:03:54,680 --> 00:03:59,120
Speaker 1: with Comey's firing, since he had recused himself from the

66
00:03:59,200 --> 00:04:04,560
Speaker 1: Russia invest instigation, and why he didn't step in between

67
00:04:04,640 --> 00:04:08,280
Speaker 1: Comy and the president. All the questions of his lingering

68
00:04:08,320 --> 00:04:11,040
Speaker 1: when the President asked him to leave. What kind of

69
00:04:11,120 --> 00:04:14,120
Speaker 1: questions do you see coming from that? I mean, I

70
00:04:14,320 --> 00:04:16,480
Speaker 1: think he has a lot to answer for their Frankly

71
00:04:16,600 --> 00:04:19,560
Speaker 1: he um. You know, his recusal was very broad any

72
00:04:19,600 --> 00:04:23,880
Speaker 1: campaign related matters, Um. And you know, on the first

73
00:04:23,960 --> 00:04:25,840
Speaker 1: day of Comy's firing, and when it looked like the

74
00:04:25,880 --> 00:04:28,400
Speaker 1: White House claim was going to be that it simply

75
00:04:28,440 --> 00:04:31,719
Speaker 1: had to do with um with Comy's you know, activities

76
00:04:31,720 --> 00:04:33,719
Speaker 1: back in two thousand six. You know, maybe it was

77
00:04:33,760 --> 00:04:37,159
Speaker 1: appropriate processions to have been involved in that. But once

78
00:04:37,240 --> 00:04:40,000
Speaker 1: the President stated repeatedly that he had fired him because

79
00:04:40,000 --> 00:04:43,000
Speaker 1: of the Russia investigation. I think it was very clear

80
00:04:43,040 --> 00:04:46,680
Speaker 1: that Session should have had nothing to do with advising

81
00:04:46,720 --> 00:04:49,880
Speaker 1: on or ratifying that decision. So I think he's going

82
00:04:49,920 --> 00:04:52,359
Speaker 1: to get some very very tough questions about what, you know,

83
00:04:52,400 --> 00:04:55,279
Speaker 1: how he was possibly thinking that that was consistent with

84
00:04:55,400 --> 00:04:59,039
Speaker 1: his recusal on the on the second mount that you raised, June,

85
00:04:59,240 --> 00:05:02,200
Speaker 1: you know, the his spokesperson has pushed back a little

86
00:05:02,240 --> 00:05:06,080
Speaker 1: bit on Comy's claim, saying that, um, saying that you know,

87
00:05:06,120 --> 00:05:10,200
Speaker 1: Sessions did uh, you know, tell callmy that he agreed that,

88
00:05:10,560 --> 00:05:12,920
Speaker 1: you know, there should not be direct contact of that

89
00:05:13,000 --> 00:05:16,560
Speaker 1: kind between the between the president and the FBI director,

90
00:05:17,120 --> 00:05:19,600
Speaker 1: and you know, suggesting that he was You're going to

91
00:05:19,760 --> 00:05:22,040
Speaker 1: try to try to be helpful going forward and making

92
00:05:22,080 --> 00:05:25,440
Speaker 1: sure those contexts didn't happen, uh, you know, sort of

93
00:05:25,440 --> 00:05:30,120
Speaker 1: a less dark version than Comy's testimony, which was essentially that, uh,

94
00:05:30,160 --> 00:05:33,320
Speaker 1: you know that Sessions did nothing. So we'll see. Um,

95
00:05:33,440 --> 00:05:35,240
Speaker 1: you know, I think it's on the first one, I

96
00:05:35,279 --> 00:05:37,560
Speaker 1: think it's pretty indefensible. On the second one, he may

97
00:05:37,600 --> 00:05:41,280
Speaker 1: well have some uh you know, some qualifying or explaining

98
00:05:41,320 --> 00:05:43,560
Speaker 1: that that he could do that might put you know,

99
00:05:43,600 --> 00:05:45,760
Speaker 1: his conduct in a better light. But I guess we'll

100
00:05:45,760 --> 00:05:52,760
Speaker 1: see tomorrow. And UM, jed, how how significant is this testimony?

101
00:05:52,880 --> 00:05:57,640
Speaker 1: Is his job on the line? I think, I think

102
00:05:58,080 --> 00:06:00,680
Speaker 1: who job is on the line? And number of ways.

103
00:06:00,680 --> 00:06:01,919
Speaker 1: I mean the fact that this is going to be

104
00:06:01,960 --> 00:06:04,800
Speaker 1: an open and open testimony, UH, is going to be

105
00:06:05,120 --> 00:06:08,800
Speaker 1: UM scrutiny that increases from the Coomi hearings last week.

106
00:06:08,920 --> 00:06:11,279
Speaker 1: It was something like thirty million people watched that live

107
00:06:11,360 --> 00:06:13,560
Speaker 1: or something like that. So we know that Trump cares

108
00:06:13,560 --> 00:06:15,800
Speaker 1: a lot about ratings and this is this will get

109
00:06:16,120 --> 00:06:21,360
Speaker 1: under open televised hearings. This will get tremendous scrutiny. UH

110
00:06:21,400 --> 00:06:24,479
Speaker 1: and UM, I think there are going to be lots

111
00:06:24,520 --> 00:06:28,280
Speaker 1: of questions beyond the questions that we've teed up here.

112
00:06:28,320 --> 00:06:31,119
Speaker 1: I think this is really an opportunity for both sides.

113
00:06:31,600 --> 00:06:34,960
Speaker 1: All Right, I'll have to stop you there. We'll pick

114
00:06:35,080 --> 00:06:36,000
Speaker 1: up with more of this