Jeff Sessions' testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday was more defined by how uncooperative he was than just about any other feature. Specifically, he claimed executive privilege—even though Donald Trump has yet to declare it—in dodging questions about his discussions with Trump regarding the firing of former FBI director James Comey.
“The president is entitled to have confidential communications,” Sessions told the Senate Judiciary Committee. “Until such time that the president makes an exception,” Session said he would not breach that authority. [...]
Sessions said Wednesday that he would not breach that privilege, and declined to answer whether Trump had discussed firing Comey to “lift the cloud” of the Russia investigation.
Sessions also stood by his agency's first justification for firing Comey—his handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton—even though Trump himself contradicted that account on national television.
"I don’t think it’s been fully understood, the significance of the error that Mr. Comey made on the Clinton matter," Sessions told senators. He said the FBI chief made a serious mistake by effectively closing the Clinton investigation without first seeking the concurrence of top Justice Department officials.
But when it came to dodges on Russia-related matters, Sessions did some of his fanciest footwork regarding his contacts with Russian officials during and after the campaign—an explanation that over time has notably slid from denying any discussions about "campaign matters" to more specifically denying discussions about "election interference." (Chapter and verse here from Just Security.) In other words, over the last year, Sessions has begun tailoring his denials about Russian contacts much more narrowly—a pattern that continued in Wednesday's testimony.
For instance, Sessions tried to reframe the question after Sen. Patrick Leahy grilled him about why, in his written testimony in January, he had falsely answered "no" to having been "in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election."
Here's the exchange between Leahy and Sessions, which was televised on CSPAN:
Leahy: The question I'm referring to is, I asked you if you had any contact with the Russians and you answered emphatically "no."
Sessions: I just wanted to say the entire context of all your questions dealt with interference in the campaign by the Russians.
Leahy: I asked you specifically did you meet with any Russians.
Sessions: The question you are referring to is subparagraph E and it says, “Several of 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?” I took that to mean not any casual conversation, but did I participate with Russians about the 2016 election—that something was wrong. Every one of your previous questions talked about improper involvement, and I felt the answer was "no." (emphasis added)
So Sessions is notably defining down from simply having any campaign conversations to having "improper" campaign conversations or conversations specifically about “interference.”
Leahy then gets Sessions to admit that there's a significant legal difference between answering "no" to any discussions in January and his redefinition during a March hearing that he "did not recall" discussing the political campaign during his later disclosed meeting with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
Leahy: Now you're a lawyer, I'm a lawyer—you are in fact our nation's top lawyer. Is there a difference between responding "no" and "I do not recall"? Is that legally significant?
Sessions: Yes.
Leahy then noted July reports that US intelligence intercepts indicate Sessions did discuss campaign issues with Kislyak. He proceeded to ask pointedly if, since the 2016 campaign, Sessions has discussed with any Russia-connected officials the topics of emails, Russian interference, sanctions/adoption issues, or any policies/positions of the 2016 campaign or the Trump presidency.
Sessions: I have never had a meeting with any Russian officials to discuss any kind of coordinating campaign efforts.
Leahy: That's not my question. (emphasis added)
Again, Sessions is back to never having "improper" discussions—never mind that the definition of what is improper or not improper is a big gray area.
So Leahy decides to break the topics up one by one, starting with whether Sessions has discussed anything about “emails” with any Russian officials since the 2016 campaign.
Sessions: I don't recall having done any such thing.
What about discussing Russian interference in our elections?
Sessions: No.
How about discussing anything like sanctions or the Magnitsky Act/adoption issues?
Sessions: I don't believe I've had any discussion at any time about the Magnitsky Act.
Any policies of the campaign or Trump presidency?
Sessions: I'm not sure about that.
Here Sessions qualifies that he has met with 26 different ambassadors in the last year and Kislyak was “one of them." Of that meeting, Sessions says:
"I don't think there was any discussion about the details of the campaign, other than it could have been in that meeting in my office or at the convention some comment was made about what Trump's positions were. I think that's possible."
That seems like a concession that the July Washington Post report about intelligence intercepts suggesting Sessions and Kislyak did discuss campaign-related matters during the election could be accurate.
What’s interesting here is that Sessions doesn’t use “I don’t recall” or “I don’t think” for every answer. He seems to employ it very deliberately, versus someone like former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez who claimed he didn’t “recall” more than fifty times during his 2007 testimony about the firing of eight U.S. attorneys.
Sessions also doesn’t want to talk about contacts with Russians anymore, he only wants to talk about “improper” contacts or discussions regarding “interference” rather than those simply related to campaign issues. As Leahy noted, there’s a big difference between “No,” I did not discuss the 2016 election with the Russians, and “I do not recall” what took place in those conversations.