McConnell Says No Republican Senator Will Replace Sessions

There has been a lot of speculation that President Trump will fire Attorney General Jeff Sessions after the midterm elections. Now Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has weighed in on the matter of a possible replacement for Sessions.

A replacement for Sessions, McConnell told the AP, is “not going to come from our caucus, I can tell you that.”

McConnell’s objections to losing a Republican senator to the Department of Justice seemed more grounded in political practicality than in an ethical problem related to Trump’s reasons for dismissing Sessions. McConnell cited the Republicans’ slim 51-49 majority as a reason for not referring a Senate Republican to Trump for the job. When rogue Republicans such as Jeff Flake, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski are considered, the Republican majority often evaporates quickly.

McConnell is undoubtedly concerned about replacing a Senate Republican in the current political climate. When a special election was held for Jeff Sessions’ Alabama seat, Republican voters rejected his appointed successor, Luther Strange, in favor of Roy Moore, who ended up losing in the general election to Doug Jones.

If he waits until after the election to fire Sessions, President Trump may have a hard time getting a replacement confirmed. Current Senate polling suggests that Republicans have the upper hand in the battle for control of the body, but Democrats remain within striking distance. Even if the appointment goes to the current Congress, some Republican senators would likely refuse to cooperate with an attempt to oust Sessions. Ben Sasse of Nebraska said in August that he found it “really difficult to envision any circumstance” in which he would vote to confirm a successor to Sessions.

McConnell did not address any effect that firing Sessions might have on the Mueller probe but did argue that the current Congress has been “extraordinarily accomplished.” He cited tax reform, regulatory reform, changes to the Dodd-Frank financial reform law and the appointment of numerous conservative judges to federal courts as well as a bipartisan bill to combat the opioid crisis.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Ben Sasse Won't Support Replacing Sessions

President Trump has had a difficult week. There has been bad legal news on several fronts and the president responded as he often does. In an interview with Fox News, Trump denied Russian collusion and blasted Attorney General Jeff Sessions for his disloyalty in recusing himself from the Russia investigation.

One of Trump’s chief complaints is that Sessions took the job of attorney general without telling Trump in advance that he would recuse himself. In reality, Sessions had no reason to recuse himself until after he was sworn in on Feb. 8, 2017. A few weeks after he took office, it was revealed that Sessions had met with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak during the 2016 campaign despite stating during his confirmation hearings that he had not had contact with Russians in that time.  After the revelation, Sessions recused himself on March 2 citing Justice Department regulations that “no DOJ employee may participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution, or who would be directly affected by the outcome.”

The renewed spat between the president and the attorney general has rekindled speculation that Trump may fire Sessions. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) speculated that the president is “very likely” to dismiss Sessions after the midterm elections. Now Ben Sasse and other Republican senators are warning the president against removing the attorney general.

“I find it really difficult to envision any circumstance where I would vote to confirm a successor to Jeff Sessions if he is fired because he's executing his job, rather than choosing to act as a partisan hack," Sasse (R-Neb.) said on the Senate floor.

“The attorney general of the United States should not be fired for acting honorably and for being faithful to the rule of law,” he added.

“It would be a very, very, very bad idea to fire the attorney general because he's not executing his job as a political hack,” Sasse said. “That is not the job of the attorney general. The attorney general's job is to be faithful to the Constitution and to the rule of law.”

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) seemed to agree with Sasse, telling reporters that she didn’t “see the president being able to get someone else confirmed” if Sessions was removed.

Meanwhile, President Trump left no doubt what he wants with a pair of early morning tweets, in which he responded to Sessions’ statement that the “Department of Justice will not be improperly influenced by political considerations.”

“Jeff, this is GREAT, what everyone wants,” the president tweeted, before adding unironically, “So look into all of the corruption on the ‘other side’ including deleted Emails, Comey lies & leaks, Mueller conflicts, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Ohr, FISA abuse, Christopher Steele & his phony and corrupt Dossier, the Clinton Foundation, illegal surveillance of Trump Campaign, Russian collusion by Dems - and so much more.”

At this point, President Trump is stuck with Sessions. The attorney general seems to have no plans to leave his post even after more than a year of withering criticism and attacks from the president. If Trump did fire Sessions, there would be little time to pick and confirm a new nominee before the new Congress is seated next year. In any case, the growing revolt from Republicans in the Senate makes it doubtful that a nominee more friendly to Trump could be appointed. In the absence of a new attorney general, control of the Department of Justice would fall to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who is not exactly a Trump favorite either. It’s possible that election results might make firing Sessions after the election even more problematic.

Donald Trump picked Jeff Sessions to head the Department of Justice. Sessions is doing his job with integrity and without regard for partisanship. This is obviously what upsets the president since he wants someone who can steer the Russia investigation away from his administration and focus the efforts of the DOJ onto his political enemies. Nevertheless, it seems unlikely that Trump will be able to rid himself of Sessions before his term ends in 2021.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Republicans say Sessions should recuse himself from Russia probe, call for special prosecutor

Russia ties may be about to claim another member of the Trump Administration. New reports by the FBI indicate that Attorney General Jeff Sessions failed to disclose meetings with the Russian Ambassador when directly questioned on the subject during his Senate confirmation hearings.

Sessions was asked by Senator Al Franken (D-Minn.), “If there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?”

“Senator Franken I’m not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it,” Sessions replied unequivocally.

Subsequent revelations from the FBI revealed Sessions’ answer to be untrue. The Wall Street Journal reports that Sessions met with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak on at least two occasions. The first meeting was in Cleveland, Ohio during the Republican National Convention where then-Senator Sessions spoke at a Heritage Foundation event attended by several ambassadors. Kislyak and several other ambassadors approached Sessions after the speech for what a Sessions spokesperson called a “short and informal” conversation.

The second meeting occurred when Kislyak visited Sessions’ Senate office for an in-person meeting. A specific date for the meeting was not given, but it occurred sometime in 2016.

Sergei Kislyak was the same Russian official who had been in contact with National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Flynn was forced to resign in February after it was revealed that he had lied about his communications with the Russian ambassador.

After reports of the meeting broke, Sessions released a short statement on Twitter saying, “I never met with any Russian officials to discuss issues of the campaign. I have no idea what this allegation is about. It is false.” The most recent statement is a subtle change from his earlier categorical denial of any meetings at all with the Russians.

As the revelations mount, Republicans are becoming more critical of the Trump Administration’s handling of the Russia investigation. Over the weekend, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), a Trump supporter during the campaign, called for a special prosecutor, telling CNN, “You are right that you cannot have somebody, a friend of mine -- Jeff Sessions -- who was on the campaign and who was an appointee. You're going to need to use the special prosecutor's statute and office ... not just to recuse. You can't just give it to your deputy. That's a political appointee.”

Now Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is echoing that call. “There may be nothing there, but if there is something there, that the FBI believes is criminal in nature, then for sure you need a special prosecutor,” Graham told The Hill.

Graham added, “If there were contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials, they may be legitimate; they may be OK. I want to know what happened between the Trump campaign, the Clinton campaign and the Russians.”

Earlier this morning, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) tweeted, “AG Sessions should clarify his testimony and recuse himself.” Chaffetz is chairman of the House Oversight Committee.

As a senator on the Armed Services Committee, Sessions had legitimate contacts with numerous foreign officials. Nevertheless, it is troubling that he would deny meeting with Kislyak at a time when there is heightened sensitivity about contacts with the Russian government. Simply disclosing the meetings would have led to fewer questions than failing to do so has done.

There are now two big questions to be answered. First, why did Sessions meet with Kislyak in the first place? Second, why did he lie about it?

As with Flynn, Sessions’ obviously false statement cuts to the core of his credibility and leaves his integrity in question. Can America trust an attorney general who lied about meeting with the representative of hostile foreign power?

 It is possible that Sessions misspoke in his answer to Franken or forgot about the meeting, but these explanations have their own problems. Given Flynn’s problems with Russia, Sessions had a duty to make himself clear on his own meetings with Russia, whether or not they involved the campaign. Knowing that the subject was sure to come up, he should have researched his own contacts to refresh his memory. Instead, Sessions volunteered the information, beyond the scope of Franken’s question, that he had never met with the Russians. Even if it was an innocent mistake, his integrity and honesty are now seriously questioned.

The scandal of contacts between the members of the Trump campaign and the Russians is growing larger rather than going away. Loss of trust can be especially damaging for an administration that has promised to fight corruption and “drain the swamp.” Members of the Trump Administration should learn a lesson that Hillary Clinton never seemed to understand: The cover-up is often more damaging that the act itself. 

Originally published on The Resurgent