Sessions recused himself from investigations involving Sec. Clinton, then cited the Clinton investigation in recommending FBI Dir. Comey’s firing to the President
Sen. Coons: “So, if you were recusing yourself from any investigations or issues that relate to Secretary Clinton and the email investigation, why did you write a memo to the President exclusively relying on that matter? The Administration’s stated reason for removing Director Comey was his conduct relating to the Clinton email investigation. Why would you participate directly in matter if you were recused from considering it?”
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, questioned Attorney General Sessions on his recusal from matters related to Secretary Clinton and the ongoing Russia investigation as well as his involvement in the termination of FBI Director Comey. Attorney General Sessions was appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee for a hearing entitled, “Oversight of the U.S. Department of Justice.”
“Mr. Attorney General, if I might just conclude, in your letter on May 9th, you say ‘I’m committed to the role of law in the Department of Justice,’ and I’m concerned that we have a different understanding of the scope of your recusal and the relevancy of the email investigation when that was the cited reason for the firing of the FBI Director,” said Senator Coons.
Full audio and video available here.
Senator Coons’ full Q&A, as delivered, is below:
Senator Coons: Mr. Attorney General, it’s good to see you again. This is our first time we’ve had an opportunity for an oversight hearing in your role as Attorney General, and I’ve appreciated this hearing so far. You have publicly recused yourself from all matters relating to the ongoing Russia investigation, and, Mr. Attorney General, I wanted to focus on that, because I’m concerned about whether or not you’ve honored that recusal fully. It is easy to state that a recusal applies, but it’s harder and more important to actually do it. I wrote to the Office of Professional Responsibility in the Department of Justice back in July asking exactly how employees at the Department of Justice participating in Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation are ensuring that they are aware of and honoring your recusal and I haven’t gotten an answer. I took that sort of personally until I realized from what the chairman said earlier that there are many letters that have not yet been answered by the department. So, if your department has not yet answered, could you please, Mr. Attorney General, just answer directly: how are employees participating in Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation instructed about your recusal?
Attorney General Sessions: The day I took office, after I had told this committee that I would meet with the ethics officials at the department to determine whether recusal was appropriate, the day after that, we had my first meeting, we had a series of meetings and, since I realized that there’s a possibility I would need to recuse myself at the first meeting, I received no information whatsoever from that investigation, never met with investigators, didn’t even know who the lawyers were officially working the case and reviewed no documents relating to it. I had a little briefing from the ethics officials about the nature of the case, because you need to know something about the case before you can make an official recusal decision. When I recused myself, we sent an email out to all the key people in the Department of Justice including FBI Director Comey that I would not get involved in the investigation, that neither I nor my staff were to be involved in this investigation or receive information about it. Director Comey once said that he didn’t get this, but we’ve got the document emailed to him directly by name. I’m sure he gets a lot, he may have missed it, but we definitely did that and I’ve complied with that rigorously.
Coons: So, if I could just make sure–
Sessions: For the purpose of the Russian investigation, the Attorney General of the United States is Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, he makes all the decisions and manages the processes and guarantees its integrity.
Coons: Have you spoken with President Trump about Special Counsel Mueller or his investigation at any point?
Sessions: Uh, I’ve never discussed with him of–well, I’m not going to comment on the conversation we’ve had because I think that violates the privilege–executive privilege.
Coons: Do you think the Deputy Attorney general made the right decision to appoint the special counsel? You spoke previously in response to another senator’s question for having known Mr. Mueller, having respect for his professionalism, his experience. Do you think that was the right choice?
Sessions: The decision to appoint a special counsel depends on the facts and circumstances of the case of which he was fully apprised and I’m not, so I’m not able to opine about his judgment, but he is a talented and experienced prosecutor.
Coons: You made a statement at the outset that some of the core mission of the Department of Justice – fighting violent crime, keeping our nation safe, respecting rule of law and promoting rule of law. I think it is important, as you have stated, that this investigation reach its natural and full conclusion without any interference. In your view, if the President asked for your advice about whether or not to remove or fire the special counsel, would that be an appropriate conversation for him to have with you?
Sessions: I have not thought that through, but if it deals with the special counsel, I think the communication would need to be directed to the person who supervises special counsel, and that would be the deputy attorney general.
Coons: If the special counsel were removed, would you protest or consider resigning in order to clarify the importance of that position and that investigation being followed to its end?
Sessions: You know I won’t attempt to deal with a hypothetical. I think it would be best just to leave my answer as I gave it.
Coons: Let me move to another recusal. You, in your confirmation hearing, you said and I think this was in response to a question from the chairman, you had offered it be the proper thing for me to do to recuse myself from any questions involving investigations that involve Secretary Clinton and that were raised during the campaign. The Chairman said, when you say you’ll recuse, you’ll mean you’ll actually recuse and the decision will therefore fall to the deputy attorney general, and you say after some intervening, there is a procedure for that which I will follow and you’ve just shared with me you’ve followed that promptly. Yet, on May 9th, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein delivered to you a memo entitled, Restoring Public Confidence in the FBI, that is about Director Comey’s conduct during the Clinton email investigation and concluded that the director handled the conclusion of the email investigation incorrectly. Is that correct?
Sessions: Yes, you’re talking about the recommendation. Yes.
Coons: And, then on the same day, you penned a memo to the president relying exclusively on the deputy attorney general’s memo where you recommend that Director Comey be removed. Correct?
Sessions: That’s correct.
Coons: So, if you were recusing yourself from any investigations or issues that relate to Secretary Clinton and the email investigation, why did you write a memo to the president exclusively relying on that matter? The administration’s stated reason for removing Director Comey was his conduct relating to the Clinton email investigation. Why would you participate directly in matter if you were recused from considering it?
Sessions: Well, first, the Attorney General does not recuse himself from supervision of the FBI, a 7 billion dollar agency that he’s responsible for, because he may have recused himself about one or more matters that the FBI was working on, number one. Number two, the Clinton case had been closed. It was not an ongoing matter at that time. Number three, the discussion about whether or not Mr. Comey conducted himself properly did not deal with whether or not there was sufficient evidence to go forward or not, with regard to a charge against Secretary Clinton. It dealt with whether or not he acted properly when he just closed the case without–instead of the Attorney General’s office–so the prosecutors in the attorney general’s office. I think it’s quite different, Senator Coons, I’m actually am glad to have the opportunity to discuss that, but I’m confident that I did not, I was not required to recuse myself on the decision of whether or not to keep Director Comey.
Coons: Mr. Attorney General, if I might just conclude, in your letter on May 9th, you say ‘I’m committed to the role of law in the Department of Justice,’ and I’m concerned that we have a different understanding of the scope of your recusal and the relevancy of the email investigation when that was the cited reason for the firing of the FBI Director.
Sessions: Mr. Chairman, I’ll just respond and say, I’m very comfortable that I did not violate what I told this committee of proper rules in not recusing myself on the decision of Mr. Comey, because it was not based on the merits of the investigation, it was based on his performance publicly in regard to announcing the decision that was a decision he was not entitled to announce.
###