Trump team faces new Russia questions
Jeff Sessions’s testimony under oath expected to pile further pressure on embattled US president
Donald Trump’s attorney general gives evidence today under oath before senators, with the White House braced for fresh disclosures about ties between the president’s campaign and Russia. Jeff Sessions is expected to be asked about his contacts with Russian officials and whether Mr Trump recorded conversations in the Oval Office.
THE White House is braced for fresh disclosures about Trump campaign ties to Moscow today as the president’s attorney general gives evidence under oath before Senators.
With Donald Trump facing challenges on several fronts, Jeff Sessions is expected to be questioned about his contacts with Russian officials and whether Mr Trump recorded conversations in the Oval Office.
His appearance comes a day after Mr Trump’s travel ban suffered yet another setback in the courts and after two attorneys general began an unprecedented lawsuit accusing the president of breaching the Constitution by continuing to profit from his global businesses.
It adds up to another difficult week for an administration struggling to lift a cloud of legal questions.
Last week, bars in Washington opened early for watch parties when James Comey appeared before the Senate intelligence committee to answer questions about the circumstances leading to his dismissal as FBI director.
Mr Sessions’s public appearance, confirmed yesterday after 48 hours of negotiations, will bring almost as much anticipation. It is the first time he has answered questions since recusing himself from the Russia investigation.
A spokeswoman for the justice department said: “He believes it is important for the American people to hear the truth directly from him and looks forward to answering the committee’s questions tomorrow.”
Mr Sessions was the first Senator to back Mr Trump when the billionaire decided to run for the White House. His hardline views on immigration became central to the maverick campaign.
However, his time in office has been controversial. He was forced to step away from the justice department investigation into Russia ties when he admitted failing to disclose two meetings with Russia’s US ambassador.
His appearance will also be watched for the first rebuttal under oath to the bombshell evidence of Mr Comey, who accused the president of putting pressure on him to end the investigation into Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser.
He also hinted that his investigation uncovered more problems for the attorney general. “We also were aware of facts that I can’t discuss in an open setting that would make his continued engagement in a Russia-related investigation problematic,” he said.
No evidence has yet been disclosed that anyone in the Trump campaign was aware of Russian efforts to swing the presidential campaign against Hillary Clinton.
However, the president’s behaviour – firing the head of the FBI – and the way several associates have been caught giving misleading information about meetings with Russians have left a heavy cloud of suspicion.
It means Mr Sessions, whose relationship with the president has reportedly frayed, will be on the defensive when he appears so soon after Mr Comey. He will be expecting to be asked whether Mr Trump recorded conversations with his FBI director, tapes that could settle once and for all the question of whose account of their meetings is accurate.
At the same time, a new front opened for Mr Trump’s legal woes.
The attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia lodged a law suit yesterday alleging the president violated the Constitution by retaining ties to his global business empire.
Brian Frosh, attorney general of Maryland, said: “Elected leaders must serve the people, and not their personal financial interests.”
They cited examples of foreign dignitaries booking stays at Trump hotels as a possible conflict of interest.
Caroline Fredrickson, president of the American Constitution Society, said it was unprecedented for states to accuse the president of breaching the “emoluments” clause of the Constitution.