While Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that he would be recusing himself from having any hand in the FBI’s investigation into Russian election meddling Thursday afternoon, Congressional Democrats were calling for his resignation with claims he committed perjury in lying to the Senate. During CNN’s The Lead, host Jake Tapper appeared to presume Sessions’ guilt, stating, “This is in many ways a brand-new breaking news story, in other ways, it is the oldest story in Washington.”
“It's not really what you did so much necessarily as the cover up or the refusal to be completely forthcoming with all the information,” he explained to Dan Balz of The Washington Post. “Do you think Senator Sessions-- Attorney General Sessions has the support in the White House at least right now to last,” Tapper asked, seeming to assume there was something to the allegations.
He asked something similar to CNN legal analyst Laura Coates, “My understanding is that perjury is very, very difficult to prove even though we’ve heard lots of rhetoric today about whether or not then-Senator now-Attorney General Sessions committed perjury. Do you think his step to recuse himself from this matter is going to put an end to that?”
Coates explained that, during Sessions’ press conference where he elaborated on his two interactions with the Russian ambassador, he was been very cautious with his words. “Clearly his statements today were very, very careful to parse words, be very deliberate in his comments to ensure that he was not showing or conveying any intent to mislead and just a basic lost in translation moment,” she said
The CNN correspondent pooh-poohed Sessions’ decision to recuse himself, claiming, “Recusal of the attorney general undermines the overall view that it is an objective force that they can actually oversee anything.” A criticism notably absent from CNN’s coverage when Attorney General Loretta Lynch was forced to recuse herself after her clandestine meeting with Bill Clinton on an airport runway. And twice, Coates warned that the Sessions saga was just “the tip of the iceberg.”
Tapper seemed to become frustrated with the whole scenario and voiced his displeasure with the Trump administration:
You know what's interesting, Amanda, is that President Trump has declared several times that Russia is fake news. Anything having to do with Russia is fake news. And he's right in the sense that when it comes to Michael Flynn and now Attorney General Sessions, they have been saying things that were fake news, at least according to their critics. They have been saying things that were not true. Flynn was not honest with Vice-President Pence, and now many members of the Senate Judiciary Committee think that Senator Sessions now Attorney General Sessions was not honest with them. That's fake news.
But according to legal correspondent Jan Crawford in her report on CBS Evening News, “I see no way Attorney General Session would be prosecuted for his testimony. I mean, to be convicted of lying to Congress, you have to give testimony that you know is false, and Sessions said this afternoon he was thinking the question related to whether he had contacts in connection with his role as a campaign surrogate, not as a U.S. Senator.”
Given what is needed for Sessions to be brought up on charges of perjury, assumptions of guilt are premature if not unfounded.
Transcript below:
<<< Please support MRC's NewsBusters team with a tax-deductible contribution today. >>>
CNN
The Lead
March 2, 2017
4:32:07 PM EasternJAKE TAPPER: I want to start right now with former federal prosecutor and CNN legal analyst Laura Costs. Laura, my understanding is that perjury is very, very difficult to prove even though we’ve heard lots of rhetoric today about whether or not then-Senator now-Attorney General Sessions committed perjury. Do you think his step to recuse himself from this matter is going to put an end to that?
LAURA COATES: Well, it is very, very difficult because you’ve got the intent provision of perjury. You have to actually intend to mislead and it really implies a nefarious sort of conduct or behavior. And clearly his statements today were very, very careful to parse words, be very deliberate in his comments to ensure that he was not showing or conveying any intent to mislead and just a basic lost in translation moment. His statements about being recused is a very, very powerful step for him in trying to give a life line of credibility to the Department of Justice.
Remember, just not even a year ago the same was required of Loretta Lynch for the hint of impropriety for her tarmac conversation with President Clinton. And of course, here you have the same issue. Not whether or not here was a fully vetted investigation into Russia interference, or whether or not there is a hint of impropriety. And that is enough for people to raise their eyebrows and wonder about whether the Justice Department is being led by somebody who can be objective and who can be critical of the administration in a way that they are required to be if they need to be. And also to be sure the fox is not guarding the hen house. And so, his recusal is very powerful but it doesn't alleviate the underlying question here which is: When Senator Leahy asked you a written question and you still answered no, the question of context is not really a powerful excuse, is it?
TAPPER: Well, and let me ask you just a technical question. When an attorney general recuses him or herself, who then takes over the deputy attorney general?
COATES: Yes, and that's the person that is going to oversee. Right now it’s Dana Benty over at EVA who will take over because you don't have a sworn in deputy DAG yet. But you ultimately have the line attorneys, career appointed attorneys whose job it is to be that objective force who will stay the course in and out of different administrations. And so really, it creates a figure head role for the Department of Justice, attorney general, more than anything else which is why it's questionable as to why he would even choose not to even try to recuse yourself.
But the reason is because recusal of the attorney general undermines the overall view that it is an objective force that they can actually oversee anything. Remember, this is the tip of the iceberg. The question is not whether all of the -- what happened with Russia. It's the tip of the iceberg. So if there are other things down the road that the campaign will have touched upon, will Jeff Sessions become a lame duck who cannot touch anything, or is it a very nuanced part? That is the question we all have to ask.
TAPPER: Dan Balz, this is in many ways a brand-new breaking news story, in other ways it is the oldest story in Washington. It's not really what you did so much necessarily as the cover up or the refusal to be completely forthcoming with all the information. Do you think Senator Sessions-- Attorney General Sessions has the support in the White House at least right now to last?
…
TAPPER: You know what's interesting, Amanda, is that President Trump has declared several times that Russia is fake news. Anything having to do with Russia is fake news. And he's right in the sense that when it comes to Michael Flynn and now Attorney General Sessions, they have been saying things that were fake news, at least according to their critics. They have been saying things that were not true. Flynn was not honest with Vice-President Pence, and now many members of the Senate Judiciary Committee think that Senator Sessions now Attorney General Sessions was not honest with them. That's fake news.
AMANDA CARPENTER: Well, here's the thing that Republicans on the hill will have to consider, and I'm asking myself. Is this just sloppy staff work, where they just didn't remember the meeting, or did they not want people to know this meeting occurred?
…
