Sessions hearing

Sessions hearing will most certainly show exceptional craftsmanship in the art of dodging questions.

This will be the first of those short comments I talked about in a previous ‘technical update‘. Note again, these comments have a more reactionary – and I presume more traditional – blog-like nature. Please note that this article was written before the hearing.

James Comey’s testimony last week drew 19 million live viewers, causing CNN to cry impeachment and Fox News to denounce Comey as the ‘grandstander’ that he seemingly is. As a Dutchman, the mainstream media landscape in the United States seems almost binary compared to the relatively neutral outlets in the Netherlands – of course, there are the inevitable exceptions, however, nothing as extraordinarily disproportionate. Let us reserve these objections – or qualities, as some make the ridiculous claim that ‘choice’ is a good thing – for another time.

Whichever side you occupy, Comey’s testimony undoubtedly raised questions concerning the role of attorney general Sessions with regard to Trump’s two current scandals: whether his campaign colluded with the Russians and whether the investigation concerning possible collaboration is a casus for Trump obstructing justice. Both being reason enough for impeachment and conviction.

Today, the thirteenth of June, is the day Sessions will testify before the senate intelligence committee. As a long time Trump ally, his senate hearing will most certainly showcase a particularly exceptional piece of verbal twisting and -turning. Whether Sessions dodges or answers is the real question, lawmakers better adapt their inquiries as to pressure him to dodge or answer.

In March I wrote about Sessions’ ‘Russian love affair’. Sessions, known for preparing extensively, walked through his senate hearings rather unscathed. With Democrats accepting him as the best they were going to get and Republicans lauding him at every turn. That is, of course, except for failing to mention his meetings with Russian ambassador Sergei Kysliak, causing him to finally recuse from all ongoing investigations with regard to the 2016 campaign. The scope of this recusal is still unclear, with Rosenstein also unable to dwell on it earlier today. Sessions will most certainly dodge most questions concerning the campaign, claiming that he recused from the investigations and therefore has no insight. Lawmakers should thus try and clarify the scope of his recusal as well as press for definitive answers concerning a rumored third meeting with Kysliak which could possibly make his recusal meaningless.

An interesting, albeit a little long, article from The Washington Post.