Amidst the media’s full-court press on Thursday to seize the scalp of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a panel on CNN’s Wolf gloated about Sessions’s predicament, misled viewers on the possibility Sessions committed perjury, and argued he’s delegitimized the Department of Justice (DOJ).
“Did President Trump's Attorney General mislead the United States congress about talks with the Russians during the presidential campaign...The issue is whether, allegedly, did he commit perjury when he wasn't forthcoming in response to questions during his Senate confirmation hearing,” host Wolf Blitzer wondered to chief political analyst Gloria Borger.
Borger responded by equating this Sessions story (originally pushed by The Washington Post) to the old Watergate adage that “it's the cover-up, not the crime” to hype that Sessions’s so-called “crime here was, of course, that he didn't disclose to the committee.”
She suggested that Sessions not only hold a press conference to answer questions but also recuse himself from any investigations on Russia. Instead of offering sober analysis, Borger flashed the media’s hand, which is play politics and gloat:
Answer questions and then recuse himself and don't forget. This is somebody who during the whole Hillary Clinton e-mail brouhaha, said that Lynch, then the Attorney General Lynch, ought to recuse herself because she met on an airplane with Bill Clinton and a special prosecutor ought to be appointed. So, what goes around, comes around.
<<< Please support MRC's NewsBusters team with a tax-deductible contribution today. >>>
Blitzer then read from a written question Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy (Vt.) had submitted to Sessions that dealt not with meeting the Russian Ambassador in his capacity as a U.S. Senator but as someone supporting now-President Trump:
Question: “Several of the 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?” Sessions reply in one word: “No.”
“So the question is, and you studied this, Laura, and you’re a legal analyst. Some are already saying he committed perjury. This was sworn testimony under oath,” Blitzer wondered in teeing up legal analyst Laura Coates.
Despite being touted as a legal mind, Coates left that wherewithal at the door as she immediately hinted that Sessions committed perjury, admitting “it walks and smells like perjury at this point.”
“The problem is semantics is why everyone hates lawyers. You cannot get in a game about whether or not it was perjury or a misstatement when the fact is you run the Department of Justice. And when you run the Department of Justice you have an obligation to insure that people believe in the possibility of objective justice,” Coates added.
Once again, Coates either willfully or unwittingly missed the boat here. As someone with a legal background, she should know what those testifying are trained by their counsel to answer with carefully tailored answers.
Leahy’s question concerned whether or not Sessions met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in the context of the U.S. election. While media reports have shed light on the likelihood that Sessions saw Kislyak as a Senator and not a surrogate, this logic didn’t cross Coates’s mind. Instead, she knocked Sessions as “the fox guarding the hen house.”
Borger chimed in to tee Coates up to suggest Sessions should resign, but Coates responded that we’re not in “resignation territory yet.” Nonetheless, Coates made that argument for Sessions to be leave office because he’s in danger of severely damaging the DOJ’s credibility to enforce U.S. laws:
But here we have very clear indication that somebody has made a misstatement verbally and in writing and frankly, this is going be a domino effect. What else is he not going to be able to oversee for the DOJ? He was a very big part of the campaign, akin to a surrogate and named a surrogate. Will this have a domino effect on anything else coming up in the future? If that's the case, we have a very lame duck for a DOJ head.
Here’s some food for thought: If what Sessions said to Leahy and Democratic Senator Al Franken (Minn.) was perjury, then what did Eric Holder do when he lied to Congress about Operation Fast and Furious?
Further, if Sessions meeting with Kislyak is worthy being classified as nefarious activity, then what was then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton while Hillary was being investigated by the FBI?
Here’s the relevant portions of the transcript from CNN’s Wolf on March 2:
CNN’s Wolf
March 2, 2017
1:18 p.m. Eastern
WOLF BLITZER: In the meantime, there's a huge question in Washington today. Did President Trump's Attorney General mislead the United States congress about talks with the Russians during the presidential campaign? We now know the Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, met twice with the Russian ambassador last year. Something he did not disclose during his confirmation hearings, even under questioning. I want to bring in our panel. Our chief political analyst Gloria Borger is with us. Our CNN legal analyst, former federal prosecutor Laura Coates and CNN global affairs analyst, senior national security correspondent for the Daily Beast, Kimberly Dozier. Gloria, it's an issue of not disclosing right now that's causing a lot of anguish, not just for Democrats but for plenty of Republicans as well. Listen to some Republicans now suggesting the attorney general should at least recuse himself from this investigation.
[CLIPS OF LINDSEY GRAHAM, RAUL LABRADOR, AND JEFF SESSIONS]
BLITZER: So the issue is not whether or not it was appropriate or authorized for him to meet with the Russian Ambassador to the United States. The issue is whether, allegedly, did he commit perjury when he wasn't forthcoming in response to questions during his senate confirmation hearing.
GLORIA BORGER: You remember the old Watergate saw that it's the cover-up, not the crime. And his crime here was, of course, that he didn't disclose to the committee and, look, I think that he has a way out of this and the obvious way out is to hold a press conference, which I think he's got to do. Answer questions and then recuse himself and don't forget. This is somebody who during the whole Hillary Clinton e-mail brouhaha, said that Lynch, then the Attorney General Lynch, ought to recuse herself because she met on an airplane with Bill Clinton and a special prosecutor ought to be appointed. So, what goes around, comes around. This was his solution for that problem and maybe it should be a solution for his own problem and I wouldn't be surprised if that's how it evolves. It seems to me that the easiest solution for him at the very least is to recuse himself and I don't think that’d be particularly difficult for him to do.
BLITZER: You know, a couple of times when he didn’t notify the Senate that he did in fact meet with the Russian Ambassador. We played the exchange with Senator Al Franken in which he said he didn't meet with Russia. There was a written question that Senator Leahy sent to him that was this and I'll put it up on the screen. Question: “Several of the 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?” Sessions reply in one word: “No.” So the question is, and you studied this, Laura, and you’re a legal analyst. Some are already saying he committed perjury. This was sworn testimony under oath.
LAURA COATES: Well, and the reason they’re saying this is because it walks and smells like perjury at this point. I mean, you have a statement, not only what he said but what he actually wrote and the reason this is so important. Gloria is right about the way the optics look and how to get out of it if you were an everyday person or a congressman perhaps. The problem is semantics is why everyone hates lawyers. You cannot get in a game about whether or not it was perjury or a misstatement when the fact is you run the Department of Justice. And when you run the Department of Justice you have an obligation to insure that people believe in the possibility of objective justice. If you have the leader of the Department of Justice saying that, well, let's play the game of, I didn't really remember. I may have had amnesia. Prosecutors pounce on this for good reason. And realistically, the reason that recusal would be important here is, not only to put the credibility of the Department of Justice is because, listen, I was a career prosecutor. The line attorneys do the bulk of the work and he would be a figure head in largely about this. It would be easy to recuse himself. But what's not easy to maintain and preserve the credibility if you have the fox guarding the hen house.
BORGER: So, should he resign then?
COATES: Well, I don't think we're resignation territory yet, Glor. I think we’re — we don't know what’s — we don’t fully know the full story. I do believe that due process is deserved and warranted for even the head of the Department of Justice, particularly for the Department of Justice. But here we have very clear indication that somebody has made a misstatement verbally and in writing and frankly, this is going be a domino effect. What else is he not going to be able to oversee for the DOJ? He was a very big part of the campaign, akin to a surrogate and named a surrogate. Will this have a domino effect on anything else coming up in the future? If that's the case, we have a very lame duck for a DOJ head.
