Among the most interesting series of questions asked during the whole lengthy Senate Intelligence Committee hearing were questions that had little to do with Trump, or his meetings with James Comey. In fact, they were questions that Comey was clearly not expected to answer.
Democratic Senator Kamala Harris, working in brisk prosecutorial style, spent her seven minutes asking Comey question after question, one after another. Many were questions that she obviously knew the former FBI director would not, or could not, answer in an open forum. The theme to these questions:
Sen. Kamala Harris of California pressed James Comey on Thursday to reveal whether Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions played any inappropriate role in the Russia investigation.
Harris asked if Sessions had reviewed additional documents on the Russian investigation before he recused himself. Obviously, Comey didn’t know. Harris asked about documents Sessions read after he recused himself. Who had he talked to? What did he read? What did he know?
Occasionally Harris darted to a question that addressed the Trump regime more broadly.
"Are you aware of any meetings between the Trump administration officials and Russian officials during the campaign that have not been acknowledged by those officials in the White House?” she asked.
But the failure to secure an answer on these questions in the public hearing was clearly not a concern to Harris. Which suggests that 1) she was getting these questions in front of the public as part of a plan, and 2) there’s a good chance some of these same questions were fired at Comey in the closed session.
In some cases, Harris was asking questions that not only could Comey not answer in public, but questions that Comey couldn’t be expected to answer in any forum. So … why?
Going through the full list of things that Harris asked …
There was an initial set.
Are you aware of any meetings between the Trump administration officials and Russia officials during the campaign that have not been acknowledged by those officials in the White House? ...
Are you aware of any questions by Trump campaign officials or associates of the campaign to hide their communications with Russia officials through encrypted means? ...
In the course of the FBI's investigation did you ever come across anything that suggested that communication, records, documents or other evidence had been destroyed? ...
And are you aware of any potential efforts to conceal between campaign officials and Russian officials? ...
Campaign Action
These are all general questions about the campaign and all draw some variation on the “I can’t answer that in a public forum” category.
Harris then switches to a specific focus on Sessions.
What is your understanding of the parameters of Attorney General Sessions recusal from the Russia investigation? ...
Is your knowledge of the extent of the recusal based on the public statements he's made? ...
Is there any kind of memorandum issued from the attorney general to the FBI outlining the parameters of his recusal? ...
Do you know if he reviewed any DOJ documents before he was recused?
And after he was recused. ...
Aside from any notice or memorandum that was not sent or was what process would be to make sure that the attorney general would not have any connection to the investigation torsion your knowledge? ...
The attorney general recused himself from the investigation, do you believe it was appropriate for him to be involved in the firing of the chief investigator of that case that had Russia interference? ...
You mentioned you had the conversation where [Trump] hoped that you would let the Flynn matter go on February 14. Or thereabouts. It's my understanding that Mr. Sessions was recused from any involvement in the investigation, about a full two weeks later. To your knowledge, was the attorney general, did he have access to information about the investigation in those two weeks? ...
To your knowledge was there any directive that he should not have any contact with any information about the Russian investigation between the February 14th date and the day he was ultimately recused himself on March 2nd. …
Did you speak to the attorney general about the Russia investigation about his recusal? …
Do you know if anyone in the department, in the FBI, forwarded any documents or information on memos of any sort, to the attention of the attorney general before his recusal? …
Do you know if the attorney general was involved, in fact, involved in any aspect of the Russia investigation after the 2nd of March? …
Harris then goes back to some more general questions. Compared to any other senator, most of whom had more time than Harris, that’s a absolute barrage of questions.
So … what is she getting at here? First she’s getting Comey to issue a complete set of “can’t answer in public” on the idea that anyone in the Trump organization met with, talked with, or worked with the Russians. She then does the same on questions of evidence. Results? No one can claim there was a definitive “no” on any of these questions. They’re all kept open-ended.
Second, Harris gets to Sessions. Did he handle recusing himself correctly? Did he look at documents before that he refused to act on? Did he look at documents afterward that he shouldn’t have seen? Did he involve himself in the investigation when he should have been looking away? Again, what Harris is after isn’t a definitive answer. She’s after demonstrating that every one of these questions is still open.
At a minimum, Kamala Harris gets all these questions out there and none of them get a definitive “no.” But that can’t be all of it. Harris had only seven minutes to spend in what was surely the most visible hearing in a decade. For many people tuning in, this had to be the first time they’ve seen the serious-contender-for-2020, former California attorney general.
It seems very, very unlikely that she would ask these questions if she didn’t already know that the answer to them wasn’t just not-no, but definitely yes.
Earlier in the hearing, Comey let slip that he had other reasons to be leery of communicating with Sessions, because there were other, unstated reasons why Sessions needed to recuse himself from the Russia investigation.
"Our judgment, as I recall, was that he was very close to and inevitably going to recuse himself for a variety of reasons. We also were aware of facts that I can't discuss in an opening setting that would make his continued engagement in a Russia-related investigation problematic."
Comey’s statement certainly suggests that there are connections between Sessions and the Russia investigation that go well beyond what we know. Harris’s set of questions seems intent on forming up the edges of those connections.
The impression left behind is both that Sessions had meetings or communication with the Russians that he didn’t reveal, and that he may have either failed to act on information he was given about activity prior to recusing himself, continued to insert himself into the investigation after he recused himself … or both.
In any case, it seems certain that Harris has a grip on something and is intent on dragging it into the light.