Attorney General Jeff Sessions is going to testify before a Senate committee today. There's the headline, but what comes next? What is Sessions going to say. More important, what is there to ask Jeff Sessions? It's not an easy question to answer. After all, there seems to be nothing much to ask about. While considering this issue, I came across an article in The Nation, a very liberal publication, which announces the "three questions" that Sessions will have to answer. It's worth taking a look at the three questions that the left thinks are important.
First, Joan Walsh (who wrote the article in The Nation) says Sessions will have to explain his role in the firing of former FBI director Comey. Really? It was President Trump, not Sessions, who fired Comey. It was the Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein who wrote the memo outlining the major problems with Comey's past performance. Sessions was given the memo and sent it on to the President. That's hardly an involvement with the Comey firing. More important, we keep being told that President Trump had already decided to fire Comey with or without the memo. So it seems as if Sessions played no role in the firing. Nevertheless, this is the first "big question" he must answer. Making the question even more bizarre is the reason why the left thinks this is a big question. Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation. They think this somehow disqualified Sessions from doing his job as Attorney General if it involved anyone who worked on that investigation. That's lunacy.
Second, the Nation wants Sessions to explain his "third" meeting with the Russians. Supposedly, Sessions met with the Russian ambassador at the Mayflower hotel in DC in April of 2016. At least that's what the media says. The left is breathlessly awaiting the details of this meeting. But what happens if Sessions says he recalls no such meeting? Could this be another of those bogus media stories like the ones that Comey said were mostly false? Could it be some function held at the Mayflower where both then senator Sessions and the ambassador attended? It's hardly likely that this was some sort of covert meet. My guess is that Sessions will be able to clear up the issue of this meeting in five minutes of testimony.
Third, the Nation wants Sessions to be questioned about his "perjury" during his confirmation hearing when he failed to disclose all of his prior meetings with the Russians. This one is the funniest of all. Remember, the story about Sessions two meetings with the Russians came out before he was confirmed by the Senate. The first meeting came when the Russian ambassador walked up to Sessions after he had spoken at a public meeting. The ambassador was part of group of about fifteen other ambassadors that came forward to shake hands and greet senator Sessions. It lasted only a few seconds. The second meeting came after the election, so it was hardly relevant. And let's remember, Sessions corrected his testimony when the issue was raised, something not at all uncommon with congressional testimony.
If these are the big three questions, this should be a very short hearing. It won't be short, but it sure should be.
First, Joan Walsh (who wrote the article in The Nation) says Sessions will have to explain his role in the firing of former FBI director Comey. Really? It was President Trump, not Sessions, who fired Comey. It was the Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein who wrote the memo outlining the major problems with Comey's past performance. Sessions was given the memo and sent it on to the President. That's hardly an involvement with the Comey firing. More important, we keep being told that President Trump had already decided to fire Comey with or without the memo. So it seems as if Sessions played no role in the firing. Nevertheless, this is the first "big question" he must answer. Making the question even more bizarre is the reason why the left thinks this is a big question. Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation. They think this somehow disqualified Sessions from doing his job as Attorney General if it involved anyone who worked on that investigation. That's lunacy.
Second, the Nation wants Sessions to explain his "third" meeting with the Russians. Supposedly, Sessions met with the Russian ambassador at the Mayflower hotel in DC in April of 2016. At least that's what the media says. The left is breathlessly awaiting the details of this meeting. But what happens if Sessions says he recalls no such meeting? Could this be another of those bogus media stories like the ones that Comey said were mostly false? Could it be some function held at the Mayflower where both then senator Sessions and the ambassador attended? It's hardly likely that this was some sort of covert meet. My guess is that Sessions will be able to clear up the issue of this meeting in five minutes of testimony.
Third, the Nation wants Sessions to be questioned about his "perjury" during his confirmation hearing when he failed to disclose all of his prior meetings with the Russians. This one is the funniest of all. Remember, the story about Sessions two meetings with the Russians came out before he was confirmed by the Senate. The first meeting came when the Russian ambassador walked up to Sessions after he had spoken at a public meeting. The ambassador was part of group of about fifteen other ambassadors that came forward to shake hands and greet senator Sessions. It lasted only a few seconds. The second meeting came after the election, so it was hardly relevant. And let's remember, Sessions corrected his testimony when the issue was raised, something not at all uncommon with congressional testimony.
If these are the big three questions, this should be a very short hearing. It won't be short, but it sure should be.
No comments:
Post a Comment