On Sessions and Truth

Terry H. Schwadron

The effects of twin disclosures yesterday about Russian contacts during the election continues to swirl, raising the obvious question: Why can’t Team Trump simply own up to truth until forced by press accounts and congressional pressure?

The details are fully the stuff of scandal that does not easily go away, and more than enough to hasten a decision for Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions to officially and carefully recuse himself from the eddying investigations into contacts between Trump campaign associates and connected Russians. He has left it to the FBI and a deputy, but stopped short of considering an independent investigator.

Still, there are suggestions that Sessions perjured himself before Senate colleagues, and push that he reappear before Congress, undergo questioning and perhaps resign.

Indeed, the flood of reaction from Congress, including from House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif) and House Oversight Committee Chair Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) made clear that recusal, something the Trump administration and Sessions himself wanted to avoid, was inevitable. But more stones will fall before this ends.

As usual, White House statements tried to divert: There is nothing here to investigate, nothing wrong with Sessions’ two meetings last year with Russian ambassador Sergey I. Kislyak, or with Sessions saying during his confirmation hearing that he had no contact with Russians during the campaign season. The President told a group of reporters that he had total faith in Sessions and did not know about the meetings.

Then Sessions announced his recusal.

They can’t even get the staging right.

To review, The Washington Post, quoting anonymous sources, reported the two previously unknown meetings with Kislyak without knowing what was discussed. And The New York Times, based on three anonymous sources, reported that in the waning days of the Obama administration, some former White House officials spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election and contacts with Trump associates across the government to ensure that Russian meddling would not be repeated in American or European elections and to leave a trail of intelligence for government investigators.

That’s pretty rich. Attorney General Sessions, chief U.S. law enforcement officer, lied—or at least misled–at least twice during his hearings, to questions from Sen. Al Franken and in a questionnaire from Sen. Patrick Leahy. He said yesterday he met with Kislyak among many ambassadors as a member of the Armed Services Committee; the Post asked 26 others on the committee if they had met Kislyak, and 20 said no. Hmmm.

And last night, the Wall Street Journal added that though the White House said Sessions met with Kislyak in July in Cleveland as a senator, not a campaign functionary, Sessions paid for convention travel expenses out of his own political funds and he spoke about Donald Trump’s campaign at the event, according to a person at the event and campaign-finance records. In other words, he was part of the Trump campaign when he met with Kislyak.

In reading the articles and commentary, here are some unheadlined details that seem most interesting to me:

• News Reporting. If you needed a new lesson on why an independent news media is needed, and why anonymous sources are involved, this shows it.
• Transcripts. A lot of the information involved in Russian contacts was recorded with actual transcripts. This is why a congressional investigation is needed, why White House attempts to divert questions makes no sense, and a curious feeling that American voters are the only ones not to know what transpired between Russians and Team Trump. In the Times reporting was this: “Separately, American intelligence agencies had intercepted communications of Russian officials, some of them within the Kremlin, discussing contacts with Trump associates.” Doesn’t sound like “fake news.”
• Classified information: Transcripts and the like are classified, being raw information. But analysis is not, and, per the Times, based on six current and former intelligence officials, the effort was on writing as much analysis as possible in those late days of the Obama administration to keep the information as low level and widespread as possible.
• Sharing information. American allies, including the British and Dutch, provided information describing meetings in European cities between Russian officials or associates of Vladimir Putin and Team Trump. Some transcripts reach into the Kremlin.
• Spreading the word. The Times said that at intelligence agencies, the effort to produce written analyses of the conversations allowed sharing on something called Intellipedia, a secret wiki used by American analysts to share information. And there was effort to pass secret reports and materials to Congress, including to Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-Md), ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, days before the inauguration. Those materials were shared with Republicans.

 

The background is that Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, the former national security adviser lost his job, in part, by lying to the Vice President about the content of conversations he had with Kislyak during the transition. Flynn had a series of phone calls with Flynn on the day that Obama expelled 35 suspected Russian intelligence operatives for meddling in the election. Sources said Kislyak was irate and threatened a forceful Russia response. But a day later, Putin said his government puzzling Obama White House officials.

Now, The Times and the New Yorker Magazine add that Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner joined at least one of the meetings with Flynn and Kislyak.

Obama was persuaded that the Russians were involved in hacking, and in September, U.S. intelligence “began picking up conversations in which Russian officials were discussing contacts with Trump associates, and European allies were starting to pass along information about people close to Mr. Trump meeting with Russians in the Netherlands, Britain and other countries,” according to The Times. “What intensified the alarm at the Obama White House was a campaign of cyberattacks on state electoral systems in September, which led the administration to deliver a public accusation against the Russians in October.”

By January, some Obama officials moved to ensure that the intelligence would not be covered up or destroyed, or its sources exposed, by the incoming Trump administration.

Where things stand now, of course, is that the FBI and various congressional committees are vowing investigation of some kind to determine the degree to which Russian contacts were involved in the election – and perhaps more. Republicans have tried to limit the investigations, Democrats want to widen it, and the Sessions role has been a point of contention. Expect that Sessions’ written word will not be enough for the Senate, which will want sworn testimony, and the records. There will be a push for a more independent investigation.

Still, there are transcripts and the intelligence reports now from several countries

The important thing here is that the content of all this is secret to us, and we have no idea what, if anything, is truly of lasting importance. Mr. Trump’s decision not to share tax returns raise questions about possible business dealings with Russia, and there have been the reports of salacious gossip and dossiers being kept by the Russians.

Meanwhile, there is a country to run, and open wonder about exactly what Mr. Trump’s ties are to Russians.

So, I think we’d all welcome a real investigation under independent leadership, and some facts, please.

##