In hot seat, Sessions’ testimony doesn’t pass ‘dirty laundry’ test
One clue that someone is telling you the truth is that the truth being told isn’t sanitized. It includes some dirty laundry.
Former FBI Director James Comey passed the dirty laundry test when he testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee last week, revealing in his responses several tidbits that he knew would draw criticism. Namely: the fact that he shared a memo documenting a meeting with President Donald Trump with a professor friend whom he instructed to share it with the New York Times.
Immediately, Trump branded Comey a leaker on Twitter, and the president’s allies sought to use the admission as a distraction from the substantive information provided by Comey. Namely: that the president apparently tried to thwart a criminal investigation.
The leak was also a popular theme among the readers who wrote me and commented online in response to Sunday’s column on the importance of honesty. Who knew advocating honesty could elicit such frothing disapproval?
There were plenty of readers who agreed with me. I’ll respond to some of the negative feedback below.
But first, let me say that I appreciated Comey’s testimony all the more on Tuesday when I watched the follow-up act by Attorney General Jeff Sessions. He took the hot seat before the same committee, but early on indicated he wouldn’t be addressing many of the questions that senators had come to ask because they involved private conversations with the president.
But, the senators asked, had the president chosen to claim executive privilege? No, Sessions confirmed. Sessions was simply keeping the option open, in case the president decided to at some point.
Hmm. Executive privilege by proxy. Hadn’t heard of that.
The memorable moments were few. He told one senator to stop asking questions so fast because it was making him
nervous. He told another quite forcefully that he only recused himself in the Russia probe because he was part of the Trump campaign, not for any other reason, as Comey had insinuated.
“There are none,” Sessions said. “I can tell you that for absolute certainty. This is a secret innuendo being leaked out there about me, and I don’t appreciate it.”
My personal favorite was when Sessions, with his gentile manner, Southern accent, and pleasant smile that often appears just as his patience is running thin, expressed his befuddlement at any suggestion he colluded or had any other nefarious dealings with Russia.
“It’s just like through the looking glass. I mean, what is this?” Sessions said.
Agreed. The allegation against a former veteran U.S. senator does seem like something out of a Jason Bourne movie. But maybe because that’s not a real concern. It’s another distraction. I could be wrong, but I don’t think the senators firing off their questions were really trying to unmask a covert Russian operative.
I think they’re trying to find out if Sessions or the president tried to influence or derail a criminal investigation into who really is responsible for the Russian interference into the 2016 election.
Lordy, bring on the tapes!
They didn’t get any answers Tuesday. The laundry was sanitized, starched stiff and most of it folded and put away before we could even see it. Now, back to the readers. Craig writes: “AG Lynch and Comey obstructed justice by falsely calling the FBI email investigation a “matter” and Comey illegally leaked FBI memos to the Old Grey Lady.”
Comey testified that former AG Loretta Lynch instructed him to describe the probe into Hillary Clinton’s email a “matter,” not an “investigation.” It was inappropriate for Lynch to ask because Clinton’s campaign was using the same language and it could give the public the impression — a false one, Comey said — that the FBI and Justice Department were coordinating with the campaign. But it wasn’t obstruction. It was media messaging. It didn’t attempt to stymie or derail any investigation.
As for the “illegally” leaked FBI memos, most legal scholars I’ve seen quoted in a wide variety of publications have said Comey violated no laws in sharing the memos, which were documentations of his own recollections, and were not classified. Some have argued the document belonged to the government, and not to Comey. My take: The government belongs to the people, who have a right to know.
Another reader, Will, emailed: “If the President does indeed have tapes that prove that Comey was lying, will you admit to your wrong and misleading writings or stick by your opinion?”
Lordy, I’ll echo Comey on this one. I hope Trump has those tapes! And if they reveal Comey telling lies, I’ll write a follow-up column and sign it upon request. Of course, seeing as how the Secret Service is unaware of any tapes, I’m not too hopeful.
Don’t forget the Trump sign
A comment from CaptSternn online: “When a person loses an election fairly and honestly, as Clinton did, why then resort to the lies that Russia hacked the election?”
Um, because the Russians did hack the election. Even Trump acknowledged the hacking in January. Whether Clinton would have won without the hacking, there’s really no way to know.
A comment from Never-Was-My_President: “Didn’t Falkenberg hide the Trump sign at her father’s house, so her daughter wouldn’t see it and ask questions. Not exactly an example of honesty.”
Yes, guilty. I threw the sign in the back of my dad’s pickup to avoid a painful conversation with a 7-year-old on a short visit with her grandparents. Then, I went straight in and told my parents what I’d done. Then I wrote a column after the election telling the world and concluding that I should have left the sign alone.
I’ll leave you with the parting words of Paul, who emailed that Comey was obviously untruthful because he hadn’t found a reason to prosecute Clinton for her emails. Paul asserted that my father’s lesson in honesty hadn’t stuck after all.
“Maybe the instruction could have been reinforced with a spanking,” Paul suggested.
There’s one person in the middle of this mess who deserves a good spanking. One day, I have to hope, the American people will give it to him.