Speaker 1: Former FBI Director James Comey's testimony last Thursday garnered headlines
Speaker 1: through the weekend the weekend this week, it's the highest
Speaker 1: law enforcement official in the country will be testifying before
Speaker 1: the Senate Intelligence Committee. Attorney General Jeff Sessions will be
Speaker 1: in for some tough questioning tomorrow about the extent of
Speaker 1: his contacts with Russian officials, his involvement in the firing
Speaker 1: of Comey, and questions of perjury, and Sessions has requested
Speaker 1: that his testimony be a public hearing. A little over
Speaker 1: a week ago, Democratic Senators Patrick Leahy and Alf Franken
Speaker 1: revealed they had asked then FBI Director Comey to investigate
Speaker 1: Sessions for perjury stemming from his confirmation hearing testimony. Democratic
Speaker 1: Senator Richard Blumenthal has said if there is proof that
Speaker 1: Sessions had a third meeting with Russian Ambassador Sergey kiss Leak,
Speaker 1: he should resign. He testified falsely, he then corrected the
Speaker 1: record under oath, so this failure to disclose would be
Speaker 1: in effect a second instance of non truthfulness and I
Speaker 1: believe would require his resignation. Our guests are two professors
Speaker 1: from Fordham Law School, Andrew Kent and Jed Sugarman. Andrew
Speaker 1: Sessions was originally scheduled appear before the House and Senate
Speaker 1: Appropriation Subcommittee. He decided he wanted to appear before the
Speaker 1: Senate Intelligence Committee, and he also decided that he wanted
Speaker 1: it to be public testimony. Is that a surprise to you.
Speaker 1: Sessions as apparently canceled three times on going back to
Speaker 1: the Hill ever since his confirmation hearing, reportedly because he's
Speaker 1: been concerned about getting grilled by Democrats about his misstatements
Speaker 1: about Russia. Um. What what I read was that he
Speaker 1: had he had initially asked for the Intelligence Committee session
Speaker 1: today to be closed, but the pressure from Democrats on
Speaker 1: the committee led it to be an open one. UM.
Speaker 1: So I think he probably would rather not testify publicly,
Speaker 1: but it looks like he's going to have to. And
Speaker 1: Jed start with the encounters with the Russians. And you
Speaker 1: heard what Senator Blumenthal said. He had told lawmakers that
Speaker 1: his January confirmation hearing that he hadn't met with the Russians.
Speaker 1: Then he corrected his testimony. Now there are questions about
Speaker 1: possible additional encounters. Is it perjury if he did have
Speaker 1: additional encounters? Well, I think it I think it. I
Speaker 1: actually think it was perjury and false testimony. Back in January,
Speaker 1: if you look at the sequence of events of precisely
Speaker 1: what happened in January, he was first asked by Senator
Speaker 1: Franken a general question about Russian contacts of the campaign,
Speaker 1: and he changed He answered a question he wasn't asked,
Speaker 1: which is to say he didn't have any Russian contacts. Now,
Speaker 1: then what happened was he had an opportunity to and
Speaker 1: if it happens all the time, people will look at
Speaker 1: their testimony and said, you know what, I said something misleading.
Speaker 1: He had that opportunity, and in fact, Senator lay He
Speaker 1: asked him a question, did you have any meetings about
Speaker 1: the campaign? The sixteen campaign? And he just answered flatly no.
Speaker 1: And it turns out that it was only by stretching
Speaker 1: by by UM I think misinterpreting those questions that he
Speaker 1: is able to um make any kind of claim that
Speaker 1: he didn't lie. I think when you take those two
Speaker 1: events together, he already misrepresented. So let me say that
Speaker 1: one is a question of perjury, but there's another statute
Speaker 1: for false statements and false testimony, and those are two
Speaker 1: different um criminal violations. I think it's clear that he's
Speaker 1: given false testimony already. So this third question, I think
Speaker 1: the come not puts him in even greater legal jeopardy.
Speaker 1: He's already made a false statement, hasn't and failed to
Speaker 1: change it in time. This third meeting, Uh, it really
Speaker 1: puts him in intense scrutiny for a much clear case
Speaker 1: of perjury and false testimony. And Andrew, some of the
Speaker 1: senators are really focused on what he had to do
Speaker 1: with Comey's firing, since he had recused himself from the
Speaker 1: Russia invest instigation, and why he didn't step in between
Speaker 1: Comy and the president. All the questions of his lingering
Speaker 1: when the President asked him to leave. What kind of
Speaker 1: questions do you see coming from that? I mean, I
Speaker 1: think he has a lot to answer for their Frankly
Speaker 1: he um. You know, his recusal was very broad any
Speaker 1: campaign related matters, Um. And you know, on the first
Speaker 1: day of Comy's firing, and when it looked like the
Speaker 1: White House claim was going to be that it simply
Speaker 1: had to do with um with Comy's you know, activities
Speaker 1: back in two thousand six. You know, maybe it was
Speaker 1: appropriate processions to have been involved in that. But once
Speaker 1: the President stated repeatedly that he had fired him because
Speaker 1: of the Russia investigation. I think it was very clear
Speaker 1: that Session should have had nothing to do with advising
Speaker 1: on or ratifying that decision. So I think he's going
Speaker 1: to get some very very tough questions about what, you know,
Speaker 1: how he was possibly thinking that that was consistent with
Speaker 1: his recusal on the on the second mount that you raised, June,
Speaker 1: you know, the his spokesperson has pushed back a little
Speaker 1: bit on Comy's claim, saying that, um, saying that you know,
Speaker 1: Sessions did uh, you know, tell callmy that he agreed that,
Speaker 1: you know, there should not be direct contact of that
Speaker 1: kind between the between the president and the FBI director,
Speaker 1: and you know, suggesting that he was You're going to
Speaker 1: try to try to be helpful going forward and making
Speaker 1: sure those contexts didn't happen, uh, you know, sort of
Speaker 1: a less dark version than Comy's testimony, which was essentially that, uh,
Speaker 1: you know that Sessions did nothing. So we'll see. Um,
Speaker 1: you know, I think it's on the first one, I
Speaker 1: think it's pretty indefensible. On the second one, he may
Speaker 1: well have some uh you know, some qualifying or explaining
Speaker 1: that that he could do that might put you know,
Speaker 1: his conduct in a better light. But I guess we'll
Speaker 1: see tomorrow. And UM, jed, how how significant is this testimony?
Speaker 1: Is his job on the line? I think, I think
Speaker 1: who job is on the line? And number of ways.
Speaker 1: I mean the fact that this is going to be
Speaker 1: an open and open testimony, UH, is going to be
Speaker 1: UM scrutiny that increases from the Coomi hearings last week.
Speaker 1: It was something like thirty million people watched that live
Speaker 1: or something like that. So we know that Trump cares
Speaker 1: a lot about ratings and this is this will get
Speaker 1: under open televised hearings. This will get tremendous scrutiny. UH
Speaker 1: and UM, I think there are going to be lots
Speaker 1: of questions beyond the questions that we've teed up here.
Speaker 1: I think this is really an opportunity for both sides.
Speaker 1: All Right, I'll have to stop you there. We'll pick
Speaker 1: up with more of this