Speaker 1: The top law enforcement official in the country, will testify
Speaker 1: before the sent Intelligence Committee at two thirty Wall Street time.
Speaker 1: An Attorney General Jeff Sessions is expected to face a
Speaker 1: grilling from his former colleagues, who treated him with kid
Speaker 1: gloves when he testified during his confirmation hearings. The senator's
Speaker 1: questions are expected to run the gamut from his involvement
Speaker 1: with fired FBI Director James Comey and his dismissal, to
Speaker 1: his contacts with the Russians and his testimony about those
Speaker 1: contacts during his confirmation hearings. A little over a week ago,
Speaker 1: Democratic Senators Patrick Lahey and Al Franken revealed they had
Speaker 1: asked Comey to investigate Sessions for perjury, stemming from this
Speaker 1: part of his confirmation hearing. I have then called a
Speaker 1: surrogate at a time or two in that campaign, and
Speaker 1: I didn't and not have communications with the Russians. After
Speaker 1: a report came out that Sessions had two contacts with
Speaker 1: the Russian ambassador last year, he changed his testimony. Now
Speaker 1: there are reports that Sessions may have had a third
Speaker 1: closed door me with the Russian ambassador at the Mayflower
Speaker 1: Hotel in Washington, something the Justice Department has denied. My
Speaker 1: guests are Ryan Goodman, professor at n y U Law
Speaker 1: School and co editor in chief of Just Security, and
Speaker 1: Bradley Moss, partner at Mark Zad Ryan. Let's start with
Speaker 1: the question of sessions talks with the Russians. Is there
Speaker 1: a possibility of perjury charges from his prior testimony or
Speaker 1: if he denies a third meeting today. I suppose it's
Speaker 1: theoretically possible. It all really rests on something that's very
Speaker 1: difficult to prove, which is what was in his mind
Speaker 1: when he testified originally. So his confirmation hearings, he definitely
Speaker 1: denied any contexts with Russians during the campaign. But the
Speaker 1: question is was he like wilfully withholding that information um?
Speaker 1: And is the information one in which he thought he
Speaker 1: was answering the right question. So I think it comes
Speaker 1: down to those kinds of difficult evidentiary considerations. Brad Sessions
Speaker 1: was a big part of Comey's testimony. At one point,
Speaker 1: Comy testified, if, as the President said, I was fired
Speaker 1: because of the Russia investigation, why was the attorney general
Speaker 1: involved in that chain? If Sessions did not adhere to
Speaker 1: his recusal from the Russian investigations, would there be any penalty. No,
Speaker 1: And when it comes to the attorney sorry, Mark, oh,
Speaker 1: Bradley Bradly Sorry, Yeah, No, when it comes to a general,
Speaker 1: he ultimately serves at the pleasure of the president. So
Speaker 1: while in theory, yes, the recusal was something to be
Speaker 1: adhered to, it's a technical violation if in fact he
Speaker 1: ran a foul love it, And truly only the president
Speaker 1: can take any action. Congress can certainly, and I certainly
Speaker 1: expect they will ask him questions about that today on
Speaker 1: their oath to see the extent to which he considered
Speaker 1: the ethical concerns and the extent to which he was
Speaker 1: running a fall of his recusal. But in the end
Speaker 1: he'll be in that job until the President demands his resignation. So, Ryan,
Speaker 1: we've heard Chuck Schumer, the minority leaders, say that we
Speaker 1: want assurances that he's going to keep to his recusal
Speaker 1: from the Russian investigation. He doesn't get those insurances, right,
Speaker 1: I think that he would have to get those insurances
Speaker 1: also from other people in the buildings. So the Deputy
Speaker 1: Attorney General is trying to give those kinds of assurances
Speaker 1: since he's basically in control of the supervision of the
Speaker 1: special Counsel who's investigating Russia right now. Um, but it's
Speaker 1: otherwise going to be very difficult for them to get
Speaker 1: that kind of information. And also the one big question is,
Speaker 1: you know, how does Jeff's sessions interpret the parameters of
Speaker 1: his recusal. That's one of the other issues that will
Speaker 1: have to be faced today because he might interpret it
Speaker 1: narrowly broadly, you know, for what. For example, one question is, uh,
Speaker 1: the Attorney General is only said he has recused from
Speaker 1: manners that arose out of the campaigns, Well, then what
Speaker 1: about the questions of instruction of justice? Um? If the
Speaker 1: Special Counsel is now taking up those issues, I could
Speaker 1: imagine that the Attorney General will say that that's not
Speaker 1: what fits within the parameters of his refusals. So it
Speaker 1: would have to be some pretty significant communication between the
Speaker 1: Justice Department and the Senate for the Senate to be
Speaker 1: informed about what exactly the Attorney generals involved in and
Speaker 1: what he's not. Bradley in about seconds, what do you
Speaker 1: see as the most important question that he'll be asked?
Speaker 1: It's would be two fold. Its going to be and
Speaker 1: it is really responding to James Colemys testimony to what
Speaker 1: extent did he respond or address James Colemys concerns about
Speaker 1: being left in the room alone with the President and
Speaker 1: to what extent, if any, did uh Mr Sessions ever
Speaker 1: intervene or was he ever asked about intervening in the investigation?
Speaker 1: And to Michael Flynn, those are pretty serious concerns raised
Speaker 1: by the Comy testimony, and I expect that I'll be
Speaker 1: brought up today how important is Attorney General Jeff sessions
Speaker 1: testimony to an investigation of President Trump, to James Colmi's
Speaker 1: credibility to the Russia investigation of the election interference, and
Speaker 1: to sessions position as Attorney General. I've been talking with
Speaker 1: Ryan Goodman, professor at m y U Law School and
Speaker 1: co editor in chief of Just Security, and Bradley Moss,
Speaker 1: partner at Mark Sade. Ryan, how important is sessions testimony? UM?
Speaker 1: I think it is potentially quite important if he has
Speaker 1: knowledge of um other contacts between the Trump campaign that
Speaker 1: might have taken place with Russia or with through wiki
Speaker 1: leaks UM. And then of course there's this burning question
Speaker 1: about whether or not low and Behold there was a
Speaker 1: third meeting in which he took place with a Russian
Speaker 1: official at the Mayflower Hotel and that was raised potentially
Speaker 1: by Comey's own testimony, where he referred to the fact
Speaker 1: that he could not disclose in an open session what
Speaker 1: the reasons where why Sessions would need a he recused,
Speaker 1: and that the FBI knew that he would need to
Speaker 1: be recused all the way back in mid February, Brad
Speaker 1: Comey said that he took the opportunity to implore the
Speaker 1: Attorney General to prevent any future direct communication between the
Speaker 1: President and him after that February fourteen meeting, and the
Speaker 1: Justice Department denied that, saying that Sessions stressed to Comy
Speaker 1: the need to observe proper protocols. What should as Attorney general,
Speaker 1: what should Comey? What should Sessions have done in that instance?
Speaker 1: Well as Thesory General and as the effectively the overseer
Speaker 1: of the entire Justice Department, he should, emphasis on, should
Speaker 1: have more or less incurred with the concern and unders
Speaker 1: recognized the concern raised by Director Comey, and he should
Speaker 1: have taken appropriate action to make the president aware. The
Speaker 1: president's unfamiliar with standard government procedures, so he's still learning
Speaker 1: about this. Make the president aware of what is proper,
Speaker 1: what is custom and tradition terms of how even within
Speaker 1: the executive branch, certain individuals are supposed to be essentially
Speaker 1: quarantined from each other to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
Speaker 1: It's something that President is not particularly well versed in.
Speaker 1: It's something that the Attorney General, as his top legal
Speaker 1: uh law enforcement official, separate and separate top legal advisor,
Speaker 1: separate from the White House Council, really should have been
Speaker 1: making the President aware of and putting these concerns at ease,
Speaker 1: and the fact that he didn't appears to not have
Speaker 1: done so raises some questions about the extents which he
Speaker 1: views himself as independent from the White House Ryan. There
Speaker 1: has been some question of what he will answer as
Speaker 1: far as his conversations with the president. According to a
Speaker 1: person familiar with sessions plan, he has told the committee
Speaker 1: he refused to discuss his conversations with the president. The
Speaker 1: notion of executive privilege has been dangled out there and
Speaker 1: questions asked about that. A few weeks ago, we saw
Speaker 1: the Director of National Intelligence Dan Coates and National Security
Speaker 1: Agency Director Admiral Mike Rodgers simply refuse to answer a
Speaker 1: question about their conversations with Trump without citing anything. So
Speaker 1: what what can Sessions do legally? That's a great question,
Speaker 1: and I was going to say the same thing. It's
Speaker 1: almost like deja vu all over again from last week
Speaker 1: before the very same committee. Sessions, if he wants to
Speaker 1: assert that he does that he will not speak about
Speaker 1: conversations with the president. Must must assert and invoke some
Speaker 1: legal basis for that. You can't go before Congress testify
Speaker 1: and in a certain no legal basis, as though it's
Speaker 1: just your own preference that you don't want to answer
Speaker 1: certain questions. So he could actually be held in contempt
Speaker 1: of Congress unless he, at the very least sites of
Speaker 1: legal reason like executive privilege, said that the conversations between
Speaker 1: him and the president are privileged and confidential. That then
Speaker 1: that would open up a second question as to whether
Speaker 1: or not that's an appropriate invocation of executive privilege, especially
Speaker 1: since Congress needs to perform its role here in investigating
Speaker 1: matters of potential legal violations like obstruction of justice and
Speaker 1: the Russia investigation. So I think he's going to have
Speaker 1: a very hard time with that, and a very hard
Speaker 1: time with both Republicans and Democrats, quite likely because they
Speaker 1: want to assert Congress as prerogatives in this domain. Brad.
Speaker 1: We have that session of the February fourteenth meeting in
Speaker 1: the Oval Office where I think that's had the most
Speaker 1: conversation directed at it, about Comi's testimony, the most dissection
Speaker 1: of it, where he said, my sense was the Attorney
Speaker 1: General knew he shouldn't be leaving, which is why he
Speaker 1: was lingering. Now, how do you that's an open question
Speaker 1: about feelings? Almost how do you expect Sessions to handle
Speaker 1: a question about that? Oh, it'll you know, it'll be
Speaker 1: very interesting. That's one of the certainly one of the
Speaker 1: questions we want to have addressed is they'll ask him,
Speaker 1: essentially for the TikTok of how that meeting started in
Speaker 1: terms of both Attorney Genial Sessions and Jared Kushner trying
Speaker 1: to stay in the room with the president when he
Speaker 1: tried to order everyone else. So we can speak to Coomy,
Speaker 1: they'll ask Mr Sessions what it was, what it was
Speaker 1: in his mindset, what was his room on whether or
Speaker 1: not he needed to stay in the room, did he
Speaker 1: have concerns about leaving the president alone in there with
Speaker 1: the FBI director, Whether or not he in his professional opinion,
Speaker 1: uses it appropriate. So that kind of one on one meeting,
Speaker 1: especially given that the FBI was still investigating a former
Speaker 1: senior White House official in the form of Michael Flynn.
Speaker 1: So I think his description of those events will go
Speaker 1: a long way to giving Congress and the public to
Speaker 1: an extent, a better feel for how things have worked
Speaker 1: in this White House and how the Attorney General has
Speaker 1: viewed his role. Ryan in about thirty seconds, will they
Speaker 1: be asking him about his involvement in the selection of
Speaker 1: a new FBI director and what he's been asked. Sure,
Speaker 1: I think that that could come up. It's not as
Speaker 1: easy to predict, but you know, he has himself apparently
Speaker 1: named other people that he thought of as better for
Speaker 1: the job, and those people were generally thought of as
Speaker 1: lacking the kind of independence that one would want for
Speaker 1: an FBI director. So I think it's a very fair
Speaker 1: question to raise with him, in particular about what he
Speaker 1: thinks of as the independence of an FBI director and
Speaker 1: what he thinks of that person ever, for example, swearing
Speaker 1: loyalty to the President or something like that, it's really
Speaker 1: a question of the independence that somebody brings to that role. Well,
Speaker 1: thank you for helping us look forward to this testimony
Speaker 1: and what to watch out For that's Ryan Goodman, professor
Speaker 1: at n y U Law School, co editor in chief
Speaker 1: of Just Security, and Bradley Moss, partner at mark z