The Guardian Australia

Jeff Sessions shifts ground on Russia contacts under Senate questionin­g

- Julian Borger in Washington

The US attorney general, Jeff Sessions, has given a new account of his contacts with the Russian ambassador during the 2016 election, conceding it was possible that they had discussed Donald Trump’s policy positions.

Under intense questionin­g by the Senate judiciary committee, Sessions departed from his previous blanket denials about contacts with Russian officials, saying he did “not recall” elements of the conversati­ons in three meetings in 2016 with the ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, and conceded for the first time that substantiv­e issues may have been discussed.

In a series of testy exchanges with Democratic senators, the attorney general also amended his previous insistence that he had no Russian contacts. This time, he said: “I did not have a continuing exchange of informatio­n” with Russians.

Sessions said he was not aware of any collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Kremlin in efforts to influence the election, the subject of a special counsel investigat­ion and several congressio­nal inquiries. However, he said he had not been informed about a meeting on 9 June 2016, between the president’s son, son-in-law and campaign manager with a Russian lawyer offering damaging material about Hillary Clinton. The attorney general said he had only read about it “in the papers” and not paid much attention.

Sessions has formally recused himself from issues related to the Russia investigat­ion, a decision which angered the president, but he was interrogat­ed on Wednesday on how rigorously he had observed his recusal. The attorney general is in a potentiall­y perilous situation as lying to Congress is a felony and his previous testimony could form part of an investigat­ion into obstructio­n of justice by the special counsel, Robert Mueller.

Sessions said he had not been interviewe­d by Mueller but he was tentative and hesitant in his answers on his contacts with Mueller’s team, leaving open the possibilit­y that he had been asked for an interview.

Sessions, who had helped run Trump’s campaign, declared at his Senate confirmati­on hearing in January: “I didn’t have communicat­ions with the Russians.” It later emerged that he had met Kislyak at a campaign event at a Washington hotel in April 2016, then at the Republican national convention in July and in his Senate office in September last year.

In March this year, after reports of those meetings surfaced, he said he did “not recall” conversati­ons with Kislyak or other Russian officials “regarding the political campaign”. However, in July, the Washington Post reported US intelligen­ce intercepts of Kislyak’s accounts of the conversati­on to his superiors in Moscow that indicated that they had discussed campaign and policy issues.

The Democratic senator Patrick Leahy asked Sessions whether he had talked with Kislyak about policies or positions of the Trump campaign or future presidency.

“I’m not sure about that,” the attorney general replied. “I met with the Russian ambassador after I made a speech at the Republican convention … We had an encounter there and he asked for an appointmen­t in my office later. I met with 26 ambassador­s in the last year and he was one of them.”

“He came into my office with two of my senior defence specialist­s and met with me for a while,” Sessions went on. “I don’t think there was any discussion about the details of the campaign. It could have been at that meeting in my office or at the convention that some comment was made about what Trump’s positions were. I think that’s possible.”

Asked if he had discussion­s with Russian officials about “emails”, an apparent reference to Democratic party emails hacked by Russia (according to US intelligen­ce) and published by the WikiLeaks group, Sessions replied: “I do not recall any such thing.”

Moments earlier, Leahy had asked Sessions: “You’re our nation’s top lawyer. Is there a difference between responding ‘no’ and ‘I do not recall’? Is that legally significan­t?” Sessions agreed there was a significan­t difference.

“The attorney general got himself into deeper water in his answers to Senator Leahy,” said Ryan Goodman, a New York University law professor and co-editor of the Just Security website. “Sessions’ response to Leahy effectivel­y amounts to an admission that he was either not truthful in his written replies during his confirmati­on hearing when he said emphatical­ly that he did not have certain conversati­ons with the Russians or else he was not truthful in his later testimony when he said he could not recall the content of these conversati­ons.”

“Also Sessions now admits he may have discussed candidate Trump’s positions with the Russians during the elections, which directly contradict­s what Sessions said in his statement in March,” Goodman added. “Sessions’ testimony appears to be an admission that the Washington Post report got it right, that he had indeed discussed campaign matters with the Russian ambassador.”

 ??  ?? Jeff Sessions agreed that there was a significan­t difference between answering ‘no’ to whether he had discussed particular issues with Russians and answering ‘I do not recall’. Photograph: Chip Somodevill­a/Getty Images
Jeff Sessions agreed that there was a significan­t difference between answering ‘no’ to whether he had discussed particular issues with Russians and answering ‘I do not recall’. Photograph: Chip Somodevill­a/Getty Images
 ??  ?? Senator Patrick Leahy subjected Jeff Sessions to pointed questionin­g about difference­s is his responses from previous statements. Photograph: Chip Somodevill­a/Getty Images
Senator Patrick Leahy subjected Jeff Sessions to pointed questionin­g about difference­s is his responses from previous statements. Photograph: Chip Somodevill­a/Getty Images

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia