Top cop cannot get his story straight

How many ways are there to fail to answer a question under oath? Ask Attorney-General Jeff Sessions. The last time he appeared before a Senate committee, during his confirmation hearing in January, he gave false testimony.

“I did not have communications with the Russians,” Sessions said in response to a question no one asked — and despite the fact that he had, in fact, met Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak at least twice during the 2016 presidential campaign. The omission raised questions not only about his honesty, but also about why he would not disclose those meetings.

On Tuesday, Sessions returned to answer questions from the Senate intelligence committee, which is investigating Russian sabotage of the 2016 election and the Trump campaign’s possible ties to those efforts. That was the plan, anyway. In fact, Sessions was not on board. He arrived in full body armour, testy and sometimes raising his voice to defend what he called his honour against “scurrilous and false allegations” that he had colluded with Moscow.

He also defended his misstatements in January, to the judiciary committee, as being taken out of context, and he lowered a broad cone of silence around all his communications with President Donald Trump regarding the firing of James Comey as director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, claiming it was “inappropriate” for him to discuss them.

Did they involve classified information? No. Was he invoking executive privilege? No, he said, only the president could invoke that. Reminded that Trump had not done so, he said, “I’m protecting the right of the president to assert it if he chooses.”

Perhaps the attorney-general was wise to keep his mouth shut. When he opened it, he often seemed to contradict himself, his staff at the justice department or the president. New York, June 13.