[ad_1]
Attorney General Jeff Sessions (Ken Cedeno / AFP / Getty Images)
Congressional Democrats are concerned about new questions about Attorney General Jeff Sessions' assertion that he would have discouraged a former Trump campaign adviser from holding a meeting between current candidate Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. hasten his dismissal and jeopardize the Special Council's investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 elections.
Instead, the Democrats told the Washington Post that they hoped that Special Adviser Robert S. Mueller III would resolve this discrepancy as part of his thorough investigation, examining whether any of the partners Trump had conspired with the Russians to influence the elections. result.
"Bob Mueller is in possession, at this stage, of more evidence than the House or Senate," said Representative Adam B. Schiff (Calif.), Democrat's top House Intelligence Committee, adding that There are other witnesses that I would bring on this issue and others who would be a higher priority for me than sessions.
A spokesman for the advisor's office declined to comment.
Sessions' honesty was questioned in a lawsuit filed last week by lawyers representing George Papadopoulos, the former campaign leader who had suggested Trump meet the Russian president. His lawyers said Trump had "nodded his approval" and Sessions "also seemed to like the idea and said the campaign should be inspired by it."
[Papadopoulos: Trump ‘nodded’ at suggestion of Putin meeting]
The statement – which is part of Papadopoulos' effort to reduce his sentence for lying to the FBI – challenges what Sessions told the Judiciary Committee of the House last year by declaring under oath that he had "no clear memory of the details of this conversation. "Wanted to clarify at [Papadopoulos] that he was not allowed to represent the campaign with the Russian government or any other foreign government.
In the past, Democrats have challenged the testimony of Sessions in Congress about the Trump campaign's contacts with Russian government officials. But this time, there is a distinct sense between them – from leadership to grassroots – that going after the sessions will play in the hands of the president, who constantly excoriates his Attorney General's Department of Justice and his challenge to oversee Mueller's investigation.
"There are many reasons why the Attorney General's sessions should be concerned about his mandate in his current position. Among them, the President continues to discredit him publicly and to interrogate and criticize him, "said Senator Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.), Member of the Judiciary Committee of the Senate. "My feeling is that the mandate of the Attorney General could be much more threatened by the unmeasured actions of the President than by the accounting of his testimony."
[Trump privately revived the idea of firing Sessions this month, according to people familiar with the discussions]
Trump rejected Mueller's work as a "witch hunt" and suggested it be finished. Democrats and Republicans in Congress, however, see the sessions as the key to protecting the probe. If Trump dismissed him, any replacement would probably not be subject to the same limitations and thus retain the authority to close Mueller's investigation.
A handful of prominent congressional Republicans, including representatives Mark Meadows (NC) and Jim Jordan (Ohio) in the House, and recently Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (SC) in the Senate, even endorsed the President's desire to remove sessions – but for the most part, attacking the Attorney General is forbidden. Asked about the apparent contradiction between Sessions 'testimony and Papadopoulos' statement, Republican lawmakers contacted by The Post said they could not recall what the Attorney General had said in Congress last year, or they questioned the integrity of Papadopoulos.
"I do not know if Mr. Papadopoulos is telling the truth," said Sen. John Neely Kennedy (R-La.).
Congressional committees investigating the alleged links to the Trump campaign with Russia have never been able to interview Papadopoulos because he was one of the first former leaders of the campaign trapped in Mueller's investigation.
The issue of Sessions' trust has long disturbed the Democrats, many of whom recalled that even in closed session testimony he refused to answer sensitive questions, for example if Trump had ordered him to take measures that would would hinder the investigation in Russia. For months, Democrats – particularly in the House – have been arguing with their Republican colleagues to recall witnesses when there were discrepancies in testimony or when new information was revealed. But without the power to subpoena, the Democrats have been largely blocked – and now predict that the resolution of the Sessions-Papadopoulos dispute will not be different.
"Obviously," said Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), "A member of the House Intelligence Committee, some people are lying to us because [testimony is] inconsistent. . . . This is one of many examples where we had to lie. "
Learn more about PowerPost
[ad_2]
Source link
