- Head Editor
Jeff Sessions: ‘I did not have sexual relations with that Russian’
Jeff Sessions, despite recusing himself from the FBI’s Russia investigations into the Trump administration, has actively recommended the firing of the FBI Director this week; an order which President Trump undertook. Sessions, an intransigent individual committed to the Trump administration, also cannot be accused of having the gift of forethought in terms of his Senate confirmation hearing. The confirmation hearing was followed by 30 hours of debate in the Senate regarding allowing him to be Attorney General, with the final vote being 52-47 in favour. Regardless of all party politics, within this hearing Sessions appeared to directly contradict factual events, a hearing which he delivered under oath.
Senator Al Franklin inquired into Sessions what he would do in the case of anyone within the Trump administration communicating with the Russian government. This question appears elementary on the face of it, but the events that have unfolded since March have shown that the question appears to be particularly germane. With accusations of Russian collusion being launched from all fronts, it is of vital interest as to what Sessions would do.
Now Sessions very easily could have given the classic answer of “Yes of course I would pursue prosecution if events and facts materialised that they had in fact committed a crime”. Instead, Sessions verbatim answer was “I’m not aware of any of those activities…I did not have communications with the Russians”. What a queer answer. It is the equivalent of a District attorney being asked “What would you do if someone was accused of murdering another person” and replying: “Well I can assure you, no one is buried in my garden”.
To the elation of many left-wingers, Sessions does have someone buried in his garden, it unfolded that he met with Russian Ambassador to the US Sergey Kislyak twice during the campaign. Appearing to very explicitly contradict his previous statements made under oath, Sessions’ spokeswoman remained absolute in her statement that there was “nothing misleading about his answer”, which is odd. As a former lawyer and State Attorney for the State of Alabama, Sessions must know about factual statements and the interpretation of assertions. However, time in the Trump administration must have eroded his abilities to discern the veracity of his statements; maybe Trump rubs onto men as well, just in a different way he does on women.
The most entertaining fact from this whole debacle seems to be that Sessions himself voted to indict President Bill Clinton of perjury and spoke of the weakening of the legal system, if truth is not upheld when it is asserted under oath. One doubts as to whether Sessions applies the same rigorous pursuit of justice in terms of himself.
The problem is however, despite lying to the Senate and further asserting being incommunicado with Russian officials in his written answer to Senator Patrick Leahy, Sessions can still avoid any charge of perjury. The nature of the charge itself is subjective, meaning it must be proven Sessions aimed to lie in the hearing. In order to decipher intention one must pear into Sessions brain; spend a short time there, and then move on to his heart in order to find his true intention behind those statements. Sessions’ spokeswoman has defended his statements as not being contradicting, and Sessions himself has proclaimed he did not remember his meeting with Kislyak. This may be true without context, but upon the surmounting evidence of collusion, many doubt the authenticity of his rather innocent excuse.
Sessions met Kislyak at a September dinner, in his capacity of previous chairman of the armed services committee, in a time where other Republican Senators present were avoiding Kislyak like the plague. The avoidance of Kislyak was stemmed by accusations of him being a Russian spy and was seen to be the personification of the Trump administration’s collusion with Russia. Sessions met Kislyak regardless, the subject of that meeting we’ll never know; it might’ve been a congratulations for the speech he just delivered or an ominous promise of favours. Yet, like the library of Alexandra, it is lost and only Sessions’ conscience (debatable existence) will determine if these facts come to light or not.
Thus, in a rather juicy chance for Lefties to denounce Trump again, it appears nothing will come of this seemingly distinct case of perjury. This is a shame; Trump’s cabinet is dodgier than a Florida used car sales man whose teeth are lost to time, and Sessions’ impeachment would be another brush stroke on the ghastly tapestry that is the Trump administration.