Why Sessions recusing himself is not enough
Attorney General Jeff Sessions has given in to the pressure to recuse himself from any involvement into investigations of the 2016 presidential election. That is not enough. He needs to resign.
Why?
Because the defense that his misleading statements in testimony before Congress, and in answering a questionnaire from Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy were not deliberate lies might be enough to avoid criminal prosecution, but they are not representative enough of the level of transparency required for the leader of the Department of Justice. First, the questionnaire:
Q. "Several of the President-Elect’s nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?"
A. "No."
We know that then Senator Sessions had contacts with the Russian ambassador to the United States on at least two occasions in 2016 prior to the November elections. It is however, impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that those contacts involved the 2016 election; in spite of the fact that one of those two meetings was at the Republican National Convention.
Mr. Sessions claims that his meeting with the Russian ambassador at that convention was in his role as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. So why is it that he used his own campaign funds rather than the budget of that committee to cover his travel expenses? His defenders will say that since the primary purpose of the trip to the convention was campaigning.
I've joked lately that any book or memoir about the Trump administration should be titled "A Confederacy of Dunces" but after an attack on Mr. Sessions by Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, one has to wonder if that tome needs to be expanded to the entirety of the Legislative and Executive Branches. She tweeted this attack on Sessions:
"I've been on the Armed Services Com for 10 years.No call or meeting w/Russian ambassador. Ever. Ambassadors call members of Foreign Rel Com." - dated March 2, 2017
The problem is that she sent out this tweet a little over four years earlier:
"Off to meeting w/Russian Ambassador. Upset about the arbitrary/cruel decision to end all US adoptions, even those in process."
Again, misleading. She was part of a group meeting, not a private one with the ambassador.
Chalk up some of this to a problem of parsing. But when a claim requires explanation because it is just plain wrong without that parsing, what good is it? The denial of meetings with the Russians may be accurate with a bunch of qualifications. So what? In most cases, intent is required for an action to become a criminal act. What isn't criminal can still be morally and ethically bankrupt.
I'll spare you another reiteration of the testimony of then Senator Sessions before the Senate.
He needs to resign. He is ethically challenged and his ability to act in his new position is compromised.
Why?
Because the defense that his misleading statements in testimony before Congress, and in answering a questionnaire from Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy were not deliberate lies might be enough to avoid criminal prosecution, but they are not representative enough of the level of transparency required for the leader of the Department of Justice. First, the questionnaire:
Q. "Several of the President-Elect’s nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?"
A. "No."
We know that then Senator Sessions had contacts with the Russian ambassador to the United States on at least two occasions in 2016 prior to the November elections. It is however, impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that those contacts involved the 2016 election; in spite of the fact that one of those two meetings was at the Republican National Convention.
Mr. Sessions claims that his meeting with the Russian ambassador at that convention was in his role as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. So why is it that he used his own campaign funds rather than the budget of that committee to cover his travel expenses? His defenders will say that since the primary purpose of the trip to the convention was campaigning.
I've joked lately that any book or memoir about the Trump administration should be titled "A Confederacy of Dunces" but after an attack on Mr. Sessions by Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, one has to wonder if that tome needs to be expanded to the entirety of the Legislative and Executive Branches. She tweeted this attack on Sessions:
"I've been on the Armed Services Com for 10 years.No call or meeting w/Russian ambassador. Ever. Ambassadors call members of Foreign Rel Com." - dated March 2, 2017
The problem is that she sent out this tweet a little over four years earlier:
"Off to meeting w/Russian Ambassador. Upset about the arbitrary/cruel decision to end all US adoptions, even those in process."
Again, misleading. She was part of a group meeting, not a private one with the ambassador.
Chalk up some of this to a problem of parsing. But when a claim requires explanation because it is just plain wrong without that parsing, what good is it? The denial of meetings with the Russians may be accurate with a bunch of qualifications. So what? In most cases, intent is required for an action to become a criminal act. What isn't criminal can still be morally and ethically bankrupt.
I'll spare you another reiteration of the testimony of then Senator Sessions before the Senate.
He needs to resign. He is ethically challenged and his ability to act in his new position is compromised.
posted by me at 5:18 AM
<< Home