Belligerant Jeff Sessions Says ‘No’ to Special Counsel, No “Factual Basis”

9
Share

Attorney General Jeff Sessions isn’t going to appoint a Special Counsel to investigate all of the many questions surrounding Fusion GPS, Uranium One, Comey’s leaking, the tarmac meeting, and so much more. At least not at this time. During his testimony before the House, Sessions refused to answer a question. He doesn’t feel the need to be transparent before the American public.

When asked by Rep. Jordan what it would take to get a Special Counsel regarding the Uranium One deal, Sessions said, “It would take a factual basis that meets the standards of a Special Counsel.” Jordan then asked if the investigation was going on right now.

Sessions said what’s required is in the Justice manual and we’ve only had two [Special Counsels], the first was WACO and the second is the one with Mr. Mueller and those were “pretty factual” investigations.

Jordan tried again but Sessions talked over him, obviously annoyed, “…we used the proper standards and that’s the only thing I can tell you Mr. Jordan.

Appearing highly agitated, Sessions cut into Jordan trying to speak and said, “You can have your idea but sometime we have to study what the facts are and to evaluate whether it meets the standard that requires a Special Counsel.”

Jordan asked about the payment for the dossier and noted that it looks like the FBI was paying for the dossier. It looks like the FBI took a National Enquirer story [the opposition research gossip dubbed the ‘dossier’] and turned it into an intelligence document to spy on Trump’s campaign associates, he said.

Sessions would not answer the question and only said “looks like” is not enough to warrant a Special Counsel. He praised establishment FBI Director Christopher Wray which had nothing to do with the question.

Following are the questions brought up in an op-ed written for Fox News Monday by Representatives Jim Jordan and Matt Gaetz.  These are the questions that apparently do not warrant a Special Counsel and which will go unanswered:

Why in 2016 did FBI Director James Comey call the Clinton Investigation a “matter,” not an investigation? After all, Mr. Comey wasn’t Director of the Federal Bureau of Matters.

Why in 2016 did FBI Director Comey begin drafting an exoneration letter for Secretary Clinton, whom he called “grossly negligent” in an early draft of the letter, before completing the investigation?  Before interviewing several witnesses? And before interviewing Secretary Clinton?

Why in 2016 did James Comey and the Justice Department give Cheryl Mills, Secretary Clinton’s Chief of Staff, an immunity agreement for turning over her laptop computer? Typically, the Department would issue a subpoena or get a warrant and seize it. Why in this case did the FBI agree to destroy the laptop?

Why in 2016—one day before the Benghazi report was released and five days before Secretary Clinton was interviewed by the FBI—did Attorney General Lynch meet with former President Clinton on the tarmac in Phoenix?

Why in the days following the meeting, and when emailing with the public relations staff at the Justice Department, did Loretta Lynch use the pseudonym “Elizabeth Carlisle?” If your conversation with the former President was only about golf and grandchildren, then why not use your real name?

Why was the decision on whether to charge Secretary Clinton made by FBI Director Comey and not the Attorney General?

Why did James Comey publicize the Clinton Investigation?

Why in 2016 did the FBI pay for the Russian Dossier? It’s been reported that in addition to the Clinton Campaign and the Democratic National Committee paying FusionGPS for the dossier, the FBI also “reimbursed” Christopher Steele, author of the dossier.

Why was FusionGPS co-founder Glenn Simpson meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya both before and after her meeting with Donald Trump, Jr.?

Why is the FBI so reluctant to tell Congress and the American people if the dossier was the basis for a FISA court order permitting the government to spy on Americans associated with President Trump’s campaign? If the dossier was a legitimate intelligence document relied on by the court, then why not just tell the country?

Why on January 6, 2017 did James Comey brief President-Elect Trump on the dossier? Again, if the dossier was a legitimate intelligence document, then why wait two months after the election to inform the President-Elect?

Why did the Obama Administration leak to CNN that Mr. Comey had briefed President-Elect Trump on the dossier? Several media outlets had the dossier prior to the briefing, yet no one would print it because most of the document could not be substantiated. In his Congressional testimony, Mr. Comey himself called the dossier “salacious and unverified.” As pointed out in The Federalist, did the fact that the FBI Director had briefed the President-Elect on the dossier give it the “legitimacy” the press needed to go ahead and print something they knew was not accurate?

Why did the intelligence community in the final months of the Obama Administration unmask names at a record rate?

Why, after Mr. Comey was fired on May 9, 2017, was it so critical for a Special Counsel be named to examine possible Trump/Russia collusion? So critical that James Comey leaked a government document about his conversations with President Trump through a friend to the New York Times.

Why is the Special Counsel Robert Mueller? According to The Hill and Circa News, in 2009 and 2010, the FBI through an informant learned Russian companies seeking to do business in the United States were involved in kickbacks and bribes. Yet, FBI Director Robert Mueller did not inform Congress and did not inform the Committee of Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), the entity responsible for the decision on whether to approve the Uranium One deal.

Why did Robert Mueller not inform CFIUS? And why did the Justice Department put a gag order on the informant?

Finally, why won’t Attorney General Jeff Sessions—the person with the visibility and responsibility to answer these questions—do his job?

 

Jeff Sessions needs to go. He’s awful in the role of Attorney General.

Share

9 COMMENTS

  1. In addition, Sessions stated he has recused himself at least TEN times during his SHORT tenure. This being the case, he is ineffectual as an Attorney General, and thus resign.

    Another ineffective person on that Committee is Trey Gowdy. I’ve had issues with him on other matters but all he did was pontificate, especially considering the gravity of these issues.

    I believe Jordan should have emphasized more the literal weaponizing of a campaign document, in conjunction with the FBI, and IN conjunction with Intelligence. There wasn’t this connection that was specifically laid out. Sessions seems to believe there isn’t enough substantive facts to warrant an “investigation”. Is he suggesting that ALL the reports are false. Those media reports are enough to, at least, to warrant suspicions and thus considered by his office. He says, “no evidence” yet will NOT answer whether or not this same ‘dossier’, BY a campaign, was paid by the FBI or whether a FISA warrant was issued based upon it. As I recall, it was Clapper himself, part of Intelligence, that DID say this dossier prompted their investigation. I believe we are where reports stated prosecutors lobbied Sessions to investigate and his reply was not to undertake it because it was of a political nature.

    According to Sessions testimony it would appear he doesn’t understand the chain of events regarding Uranium One. His assertion is that CFIUS decided all this BEFORE the criminal case. Well, it took FOUR years for that case to come forward and therefore CFIUS wasn’t made aware this matter was under investigation as it should have been. From all the Committee Republicans questions it is quite obvious nothing was coordinated when it should have been done given a five minute time limit. You would think at least one of those would have constructed a timeline on all these events. Obviously just more theater.

    • Sessions conveniently uses misrepresentation and terse phrases to justify taking no action. He’s a grouch when confronted with his obvious ineffectiveness. He knows he has a strangle hold over the DOJ with the senate making threats against Trump if Sessions is removed. He knows Congress has little recourse against him with anti-Trump people in leadership roles. He has made some horrible choices and faces public ridicule.

  2. Jordan has now unmasked Sessions for all including the most gullible to see. Regardless of the motive of Sessions, he is unfit and must be removed. The debate should switch to how to remove this person. I hope the pressure continues on this corrupt coward. I hope Trump appoints a special investigator.

  3. Sessions admitted that people in Government positions can and do use aliases. Clearly members of Congress weren’t aware of this since Judicial Watch was the ones who found out about it which resulted in Congressional questions. This needs a SPECIAL PROSECUTOR!!

  4. Let’s see, Sessions claims a lack of specific evidence to do much of anything when confronted with numerous news accounts on a variety of issues and subjects who should be under investigation. Well, wasn’t this entire Russian investigation started simply BECAUSE of news reports and without ANY specific evidence. What say you, Sessions.

  5. When asked by Rep. Jordan what it would take to get a Special Counsel regarding the Uranium One deal, Sessions said, “It would take a factual basis that meets the standards of a Special Counsel.” So, how do you explain Mueller and the Trump/Russian collusion?

  6. Everyone is missing the point here; and watching Hannity tonight, he also is missing the larger point. It is true that Putin has 20% control which is 20% of a minor source of Uranium. We should ask ourselves WHY would Putin be interested in 20% of a company that isn’t a major producer of Uranium. Well, it goes back much further than this Putin / Uranium One deal. It BEGINS with Kazakhstan and HOW Uranium One eventually got control of THEIR Uranium production. They were coerced in turning over their ownership that had essential ties with the Clinton Foundation. Since Kazakhstan is the largest producer of Uranium the deal with Uranium One has given ‘Putin’ control of the largest Uranium production in the world. THIS should be the focus of any investigation.

  7. Well, after watching the full Hannity show he has decided to throw Moore under the bus. It would be different if it weren’t the typical tactics ever since Bill Clinton sought the office. The Democrats have stooped to the lowest levels in every election since then, and we should just believe the stories. As far as I’m concerned I’m done with Hannity, even IF Moore would eventually admit guilt. You’ll never ever see Any Democrat buckle under the pressure so WHY should WE accept it on our side. I fully expect Hannity to lose his show before it’s all over. Moore has accumulated even more support Because of who brought the accusations. And, I say this as one who doesn’t believe or support his religion in any way, except in terms of morality, which he seems to be adamant about.

Leave a Reply