The Attorney General of the United States of America is grilled by the Democratic Senators on the Intelligence Committee (while Republicans blew kisses and pinched his cute elvish cheeks). After today’s hearing, one could legitimately ask if testifying under oath means anything in the Age of Trump.
- Sessions refused to answer questions about his discussions with President Trump about the Russia probe, citing DOJ policy. But then he couldn’t or wouldn’t say which policy and whether said policy was actually written down anywhere.
- Said he wanted Trump to have a chance to assert executive privilege over their private conversations, though Trump has had days to do so, and hasn’t. HE ASSERTED PRIVILEGE WHERE NO PRIVILEGE EXISTS!
- Sessions declined to say what he felt about Trump saying he fired Comey over the Russia probe, when the stated reason was supposed to be his handling of the FBI in general.
- Sessions said he couldn’t recall if he’d had a third, previously-unreported meeting with a Russian official. I would remember meeting a Russian official. Wouldn’t you?
- Sessions says he’s completely uninvolved in the Russia probe due to his recusal, and that he’s not receiving updates on it. Maybe that explains why he refused to answer any substantive questions.
- Sessions angrily described the innuendo about his contacts with Russians, calling it “scurrilous.”
So, now what? If Sessions can obfuscate and bristle at a Democratic senator for rushing him to answer her question (it makes him nervous), what’s the purpose of these or any other hearings?
Suppose somehow Trump agrees to testify under oath somewhere. Does anybody believe he will actually tell the truth, oath or not? Anyone?