Speaker 1: Joining us is Jennifer Rogers, Executive director of the Center
Speaker 1: for the Advancement of Public Integrity. Jennifer, perjury requires a
Speaker 1: statement under oath that is false, material, or significant, and
Speaker 1: that the speaker knows is false. Does sessions testimony fit
Speaker 1: the legal criteria for perjury? I don't think so. I
Speaker 1: think the question and answer are just a little too
Speaker 1: ambiguous to make a perjury count out. It's just a
Speaker 1: very very hard statue to prove, and in this case,
Speaker 1: it's just not a clean enough question and answer to
Speaker 1: be able to say that for sure he knew that
Speaker 1: he was being untruthful when he answered, Well, Jennifer, is
Speaker 1: is that the only question here though, whether or not
Speaker 1: he committed perjury or because a lot of people in
Speaker 1: Congress at least seem to be upset with um the veracity,
Speaker 1: whether or not it's a crime. Well, there are a
Speaker 1: whole host of issues about whether the Attorney General was
Speaker 1: misleading Congress and if so, whether he should resigning. And
Speaker 1: you know, there's a false statement statute also that could
Speaker 1: be applied here. There's even a misdemeanor statute for misleading
Speaker 1: Congress that was used back in the Watergate times. UM
Speaker 1: So I'm really just talking about perjury because it is
Speaker 1: such a hard statute to prove. But there are a
Speaker 1: whole host of other issues that you know, become a
Speaker 1: little bit more of a political issue than a legal issue.
Speaker 1: And so what what you know, let's say that you
Speaker 1: can't prove perjury here, what what could Congress look at
Speaker 1: if they wanted to investigate what is going on here
Speaker 1: and what has happened here? Well, on the legal side,
Speaker 1: you know, there's really just perjury and false statements, neither
Speaker 1: of which I think is going to be actionable here
Speaker 1: unless additional information came out. Um. And then there's the
Speaker 1: misdemeanor about misleading Congress. That one is a possibility. Uh.
Speaker 1: And then of course there're a whole, a whole realm
Speaker 1: of non legal actions, right. They could continue to investigate
Speaker 1: him and you know, seek his resignation and and other
Speaker 1: other means of removal other than criminal convictions under the
Speaker 1: legal system, But as far as the law is concerned,
Speaker 1: the options are pretty limited, at least on the evidence
Speaker 1: we know now, unless something else comes out. So what
Speaker 1: about contempt of Congress proceedings? UM? I think could certainly
Speaker 1: UM initiate something like that um. You know, the problem
Speaker 1: is we're dealing with a Republican Congress that doesn't seem
Speaker 1: so far to be bowing to pressure to go too
Speaker 1: far into this. Um. So, you know, all the possibilities
Speaker 1: kind of on the political side are a little bit
Speaker 1: sketchy given the Republican leadership in Congress, but that is
Speaker 1: a possibility if they were willing to take that up.
Speaker 1: Jennifer just pushing to pass having Democrats pushed to pass
Speaker 1: a contempt of Congress resolution could force him to resign.
Speaker 1: It's certainly there's been pressure to other attorney generals in
Speaker 1: the past that have pushed them to resign. And isn't
Speaker 1: there also a factor of the Attorney General being the
Speaker 1: top law enforcement officer in the nation and being held
Speaker 1: to a strict standard. Well, certainly the Attorney General should
Speaker 1: be held to the highest of ethical standards, you know.
Speaker 1: But what he's saying is, you know, I wasn't lying.
Speaker 1: It just was the question was asked, and I wasn't
Speaker 1: thinking about this other contact that I had had in
Speaker 1: a different context. So at least as far as what
Speaker 1: Attorney General Sessions is claiming now, he is you know,
Speaker 1: being uh, he is acting in the in the highest standards.
Speaker 1: So you know, I'm not sure that he would disagree
Speaker 1: with the fact that he should be held at that standard.
Speaker 1: But he says that he is um, and you know,
Speaker 1: it's it's it's kind of hard to disprove it unless again,
Speaker 1: there's evidence to come out. I mean, surely if there
Speaker 1: were a recording of the meeting where it was clear
Speaker 1: they were talking about the campaign and Russian influence in
Speaker 1: the election, then I think it would be more clear
Speaker 1: that he knew he wasn't telling the roots um when
Speaker 1: he said he didn't know about any communications of that nature. UM.
Speaker 1: But short of that, you know, I think he just says, look,
Speaker 1: it was a little bit of a disconnect. I was
Speaker 1: thinking about one thing and and you know, other people
Speaker 1: are thinking about other things, and that's where we are. Well,
Speaker 1: so he's now accused himself from the investigation, saying that
Speaker 1: he that you know, he's not going to take any
Speaker 1: part in them at this point. Now that we found
Speaker 1: out about these things, you know, it raises it's raised
Speaker 1: a number of questions for people about why he didn't
Speaker 1: recuse earlier, and is recusal sufficient? But I wonder if
Speaker 1: he really didn't do if he says he didn't do
Speaker 1: anything wrong here. Does he really need to be recused? Well,
Speaker 1: I think he does, Um, And the reason is that,
Speaker 1: first of all, recusal, you should have a very low
Speaker 1: bar for recusal. If there's really any suggestion at all
Speaker 1: that you have a personal conflict or that you personally
Speaker 1: will be brought into the scope of an investigation, then
Speaker 1: you really should recuse um. And so I think it
Speaker 1: it was the right decision. I think it didn't happen
Speaker 1: earlier because he was just trying to fend off the
Speaker 1: growing storm about it, and you know, finally when it
Speaker 1: became a bit of a roar, then he did say
Speaker 1: he would recuse. So the Deputy Attorney General will will
Speaker 1: handle the investigation, and you know, we'll wait to see
Speaker 1: where that goes, of course, but ultimately I think it
Speaker 1: was right to step away. You know, high level federal
Speaker 1: officials need to not only avoid actual conflicts, but the
Speaker 1: appearance of conflicts, and so you know, ultimately that was
Speaker 1: he did the right thing. Jennifer. He said he's going
Speaker 1: to correct the record, but some senators are criticizing him
Speaker 1: for his failure to clarify his response in written testimony
Speaker 1: to the committee. Afterwards, and he had a lot of
Speaker 1: opportunity to clarify his response once he realized what was
Speaker 1: happening with Michael Flynn and all the different the investigations
Speaker 1: into the alleged Russia connection. So is at incriminating, you know,
Speaker 1: it's hard to say. I mean, again, he's maintaining that
Speaker 1: the context that he had were in a totally different context.
Speaker 1: They were context he had because he was a senator
Speaker 1: or not because he was kind of part of the
Speaker 1: Trump world. So you know, he could just say, listen,
Speaker 1: I had a separation there. You know, I didn't have
Speaker 1: any contact in connection with the Trump things that I
Speaker 1: was doing, and so I didn't feel any need to
Speaker 1: correct the record in that respect. Um, you know, he's
Speaker 1: he's got that division. He's maintaining that division. If something
Speaker 1: comes out that shows that that's not an actual division,
Speaker 1: then we'll have more to talk about. But I think
Speaker 1: he just kind of came up with this, you know,
Speaker 1: dividing line in his mind, and he's he's sticking to
Speaker 1: it in always. Let me just tell you some of
Speaker 1: the events. Let's just go through a chronology and then
Speaker 1: we can put into context what what where he was
Speaker 1: at perhaps on March seventeenth, he discussed Trump's foreign policy positions,
Speaker 1: including there being no re He's in for the US
Speaker 1: and Russia to be at loggerheads at a meeting on
Speaker 1: July eighteen, the Russian ambassador approached him after a Heritage
Speaker 1: Foundation panel that focused on Russia's incursions into Ukraine and Georgia.
Speaker 1: On July thirty one, in an appearance on CNN, he
Speaker 1: defended Trump's position on reaching out to Russia. And then
Speaker 1: September eight you have him meeting with that Russian ambassador
Speaker 1: that had approached him in his Senate office. In light
Speaker 1: of that, and as we see some of his aids
Speaker 1: perhaps being called before the committee, doesn't it seem as
Speaker 1: if there is and he does have an involvement with
Speaker 1: the Russia issue. Well, look, I mean he certainly could.
Speaker 1: I think the problem is we just don't have any
Speaker 1: evidence other than what he is saying about what happened
Speaker 1: during that meeting, um so, and you need that kind
Speaker 1: of evidence to bring charges. So whatever it looks like
Speaker 1: politically and the pressure that's on him to resign or
Speaker 1: what have you, that's kind of one side of things.
Speaker 1: But you know, what I've been thinking about really is
Speaker 1: more on the legal side of things. What evidence you
Speaker 1: have to have to bring an actual criminal charge, and
Speaker 1: you know, innuendo and suggestive chronologies really just aren't enough.
Speaker 1: So without evidence that what happened in that meeting really
Speaker 1: was related to the campaign or the election and not
Speaker 1: to just general Senate stuff, UM, you know, I don't
Speaker 1: think you have it. And you know, I'm even mindful
Speaker 1: of the commentary I've seen recently that says that Senators
Speaker 1: don't typically meet with ambassadors, UM, just to talk about
Speaker 1: general Senate stuff. It's not the sort of thing you
Speaker 1: would do to meet with a foreign adversary. UM. So
Speaker 1: I'm not sure what they did talk about or how
Speaker 1: it can be justified. But without evidence that that's not
Speaker 1: true and what they actually we're doing was talking about
Speaker 1: election or campaign related things, it's not solid enough to
Speaker 1: bring a criminal case. Well, you know, you're going to
Speaker 1: have Justice Department lawyers and presumably the FBI now investigating this. UM.
Speaker 1: The Attorney General recused. You know, the White House has
Speaker 1: been very outspoken about UM, all of these issues and
Speaker 1: their position on them, and some have called for a
Speaker 1: you know, a special prosecutor or investigator to take a
Speaker 1: look at these allegations and that hasn't happened. Do you think, Jennifer,
Speaker 1: that you know, people can have some faith in the
Speaker 1: Justice Department to actually do this investigation given the Attorney
Speaker 1: General's involvement in what's coming from the White House, or
Speaker 1: how ethically should people be thinking about what the Justice
Speaker 1: Department is about to do? You know, I think we
Speaker 1: can have confidence in what's going to happen. UM. I
Speaker 1: was lucky enough to work with Jim Comey when he
Speaker 1: was the U. S Attorney in Manhattan, and I have
Speaker 1: the highest faith in his abilities to be independent and
Speaker 1: impartial and to take the investigation where the evidence leads.
Speaker 1: And I've heard heard also very good things about Rod Rosenstein,
Speaker 1: who's due to come in after confirmation and as the
Speaker 1: Deputy Attorney General. I don't know him personally, but I've
Speaker 1: heard good things about his um, his ethics, So you know,
Speaker 1: I do think that these are people who are charged
Speaker 1: with upholding the law and for investigating and and following
Speaker 1: where the evidence leads. So I do think that we
Speaker 1: can have confidence that, uh, if there is evidence to
Speaker 1: suggest that there was a lie or even misleading evidence
Speaker 1: put before the Congress, that UM that that they will
Speaker 1: go with that and and ultimately do whatever is appropriate
Speaker 1: with that information.