Jaws Drop As Jeff Sessions All But Admits That Trump Obstructed Justice

[applegrove]

By Jason Easley at Politicus USA

http://www.politicususa.com/2017/11/30/jaws-drop-jeff-sessions-admits-trump-obstructed-justice.html

"SNIP..........


When asked by the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) if Trump ever directed him to hinder the Russia investigation, Attorney General Jeff Sessions refused to answer the question.

Manu Raju of CNN reported:


Manu Raju
✔
@mkraju
Schiff says he asked Sessions directly if Trump ever directed him to "hinder" the Russia investigation. He declined to answer, citing private conversations with Trump
1:07 PM - Nov 30, 2017
401 401 Replies 2,296 2,296 Retweets 3,708 3,708 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Schiff’s question is easy to answer if the answer is no. The only reason for Attorney General Session to decline to answer is that any answer that he could provide would damage Trump. Anyone who has watched Jeff Sessions testify since he became Attorney General knows that the refusal to answer due to the privacy of the conversation is one of his favorite go-to moves when he is trying to avoid providing damaging information to the Russia investigation.

If the answer was no, all Sessions had to do was say no, and it would help boost the President’s claims that he did not obstruct justice. The Attorney General’s refusal to answer was an answer itself. There have been media reports for months that Trump wanted to fire Sessions because he wouldn’t interfere and make the Russia investigation go away.

.........SNIP"

[Cicada]

1. Isnt refusal to answe about presidential conversations common?

[dawg day]

6. With Trump's aides, yes.

Trump could claim "executive privilege", though courts have limited that. And certainly a court would not say that there is executive privilege to protect revelation of a criminal act. (Ask Richard M. Nixon about that.)

Trump's aides have gotten away with that because there's a Republican congress. But federal employees (which Sessions is) and especially Cabinet secretaries are expected to testify to Congress. They are not Trump's own minions, after all. They're paid by the government.
Sessions can take the Fifth Amendment for himself. Otherwise, he's supposed to testify honestly. It really is part of his job.
But they'll get away with it, just as Congress is letting Steve Mnuchin (treasury) lie about the effects of the tax plan rather than provide the information Congress asked for.

[Cicada]

14. Senator Sessions asked Holder a similar question, Holder answered

I googled and found in Politifact on Sessions that doj memos do say dept officials should not answer without first checking with the President on whether he wants to invoke executive privilege. I found that with the rolls flipped Session asked Holder about a conversation with Obama and Holder answered the question.

[gratuitous]

2. Another record-breaking precedent!

A sitting Attorney General practically invoking the Fifth Amendment. Trump and his fanboiz will be soooo proud!

[Cracklin Charlie]

3. Wow!

Excellent question, Mr. Prosecutor!

[NurseJackie]

4. Does he get "points" for not perjuring himself and simply answering "no" anyway?

Or is NOT directly answering the question with these convoluted avoidance tactics and word-games the same thing as lying under oath?

[L. Coyote]

9. In Sessions case, he gets less jail time for not perjuring himself again!

Can you believe we are discussing the US AG? Oh wait, he's a Republican.

[malaise]

5. Lock them all Up

Rachel should be great tonight

[BigmanPigman]

11. It is her top story! You called it.

[malaise]

12. LOL

[FreepFryer]

7. Stonewalling, gradualism and outright lying is his move... remember June, 2016.

"There is no legally binding basis for refusing to answer questions unrelated to an ongoing investigation unless the President is invoking executive privilege," William Yeomans, a 26-year veteran of the Justice Department and fellow at American University Law School, told CNN."That privilege is not absolute -- it can be overcome by a sufficient interest. DOJ traditionally does not discuss ongoing investigations in public, but ultimately must answer questions unless executive privilege is properly invoked and upheld."

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/13/politics/jeff-sessions-testimony-executive-privilege/index.html

[L. Coyote]

8. Isn't that the equivalent of telling Mueller exactly where to go?

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[blueinredohio]

10. Hope Mueller questions him

[Augiedog]

13. His refusal also suggests he failed to act on the crime which may make a party to the criminal act