Sen. Franken: Sessions should recuse himself

HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO SAY ABOUT
THAT.
>> SENATOR AL FRANKEN JOINS US
NOW LIVE.
SENATOR, DO YOU ACCEPT THAT
EXPLANATION FROM THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL?
>> NOT REALLY, BECAUSE
BETWEEN -- IN BETWEEN THE
REVELATION THAT HE ANSWERED MY
QUESTION IN WHAT WOULD AT BEST
WITH AN EXTREMELY MISLEADING
WAY, HIS OFFICE HAD SAID THAT HE
HAD NO -- HE HAD MET WITH THE
RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR BUT HE
HADN'T -- DIDN'T HAVE ANY
RECOLLECTION OF WHAT THE CONTENT
OF THE DISCUSSION WAS.
AND SO THAT IS THE -- SO NOW WE
HAVE A THIRD ITERATION OF THIS
WHICH IS I DIDN'T DISCUSS
ANYTHING ABOUT THE CAMPAIGN.
WELL, FIRST IT IS I DIDN'T MEET
WITH ANY RUSSIANS.
THEN IT'S I MET WITH THE RUSSIAN
AMBASSADOR, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER
WHAT WE DISCUSSED, AND THEN IT'S
THESE CHARGES ARE THAT I MET
WITH THE RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR AND
DISCUSSED THE CAMPAIGN, WE
DIDN'T DISCUSS THE CAMPAIGN.
THESE ARE ALL CONTRADICTORY.
I HAD SIMPLY ASKED HIM WHAT
WOULD HE DO IF HE HAD LEARNED
THAT OTHER MEMBERS OF THE
CAMPAIGN HAD MET WITH THE
RUSSIANS, HOPING HE WOULD SAY HE
WOULD RECUSE HIMSELF.
HE CHOSE NOT TO ANSWER THAT, BUT
INSTEAD CHOSE TO SAY THAT HE HAD
NOT MET WITH THE RUSSIANS AND,
OF COURSE, THE AMBASSADOR FROM
RUSSIA IS A RUSSIAN.
>> DO YOU THINK THAT SESSIONS
LIED TO YOU?
>> I WOULD SAY AT THE VERY LEAST
THIS WAS EXTREMELY MISLEADING.
I WOULD LOVE FOR HIM -- I'M
GOING TO BE SENDING HIM A LETTER
TO HAVE HIM EXPLAIN HIMSELF, BUT
HE MADE A BALD STATEMENT THAT
DURING THE CAMPAIGN HE HAD NOT
MET WITH THE RUSSIANS.
THAT'S NOT TRUE.
WHETHER HE IN HIS HEAD THOUGHT
THAT HE WAS ANSWERING WHETHER HE
HAD TALKED TO ANY RUSSIANS ABOUT
THE CAMPAIGN, THEN HE SHOULD
HAVE SAID SO.
HE SHOULD HAVE SAID I MET WITH
THE RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR A COUPLE
TIMES, BUT WE DIDN'T DISCUSS THE
CAMPAIGN.
BUT THEN HIS OFFICE SHOULDN'T
COME OUT WITH AN EXPLANATION
SAYING HE TALKED WITH THE
RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR BUT DOESN'T
REMEMBER WHAT THEY TALKED ABOUT.
AND HE NEEDS TO EXPLAIN HIMSELF
HERE.
AND FOR HIM TO GET ON HIS HIGH
HORSE AND SAY I DON'T KNOW WHAT
ALL THIS IS ABOUT, I JUST ASKED
A QUESTION.
AND HE WAS THE ONE WHO OFFERED
THIS.
I DIDN'T ASK HIM HAVE YOU TALKED
TO ANY OF THE RUSSIANS DURING
THE CAMPAIGN.
I DIDN'T ASK HIM THAT.
I ASKED HIM, WHAT WOULD YOU DO
IF YOU LEARNED THAT MEMBERS OF
THE CAMPAIGN HAD MET WITH THE
RUSSIANS, HOPING HE'D SAY HE'D
RECUSE HIMSELF IN ANY
INVESTIGATION.
INSTEAD HE CHOSE TO ANSWER THE
WAY HE DID WHICH AGAIN, AS I
SAID, IS EXTREMELY MISLEADING AT
THE MOST CHARITABLE.
>> WELL, THERE ARE TWO BASIC
DEFENSES THAT ARE BEING OFFERED
UP FOR SESSIONS.
ONE IS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE AND
IT'S BASICALLY JUST A POLITICAL
BLAME GAME.
THAT'S A DISTRACTION.
SO I DON'T REALLY CARE ABOUT
THAT.
BUT THE OTHER ONE IS THAT IT'S
CONTEXT, THAT HE DIDN'T THINK
THE QUESTION WAS ABOUT MEETINGS
THAT PERTAINED TO THE ELECTION
AND THEY USED HIS RESPONSE TO
SENATOR LEAHY OF VERMONT WHO DID
ONE OF THE WRITTEN
QUESTIONNAIRES -- QUESTIONS IN A
QUESTIONNAIRE.
AND HE ASKED IN THAT QUESTION,
SEVERAL OF THE PRESIDENT-ELECT'S
NOMINEES OR SENIOR ADVISERS HAVE
RUSSIAN TIES.
HAVE YOU BEEN IN CONTACT WITH
ANYONE CONNECTED TO ANY PART OF
THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT ABOUT THE
2016 ELECTION EITHER BEFORE OR
AFTER ELECTION DAY.
AND SESSIONS ANSWERED IN A WORD
NO.
DO YOU THINK IT IS A FAIR
DEFENSE THAT HE SAID NO BECAUSE
IN HIS JUDGMENT HE NEVER MET
WITH THEM ABOUT THE ELECTION?
>> WELL, WE DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S
T
TRUE.
WE DON'T KNOW IF IN HIS JUDGMENT
HE NEVER MET WITH THEM ABOUT THE
ELECTION.
IN THE HEARING, WHAT I
DEVELOPED, HE MISREPRESENTED HIS
RECORD AS A PROSECUTOR.
HE SAID HE PERSONALLY HANDLED
FOUR CIVIL RIGHTS CASES, AND HE
DIDN'T PERSONALLY HANDLE.
AND THEN HE ANSWERED MY QUESTION
IN A WAY THAT WAS EITHER
DELIBERATELY MISLEADING OR
MISLEADING BECAUSE HE LITERALLY
DIDN'T REMEMBER THAT HE HAD MET
WITH THE RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR OR
ARE HE INTERPRETED MY QUESTION
DIFFERENTLY.
LOOK, THIS IS AN EXTREMELY
SERIOUS MATTER.
THIS IS THE OTHER MAJOR FOREIGN
POWER INTERFERING WITH THE
DEMOCRATIC ELECTION OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
NOTHING COULD BE MORE SERIOUS.
>> REPRESENTATIVE TOM COLE OF
OKLAHOMA WAS ON.
HE SAYS THE EXACT OPPOSITE.
HE SAYS, LOOK, YOU WANT TO ASK
QUESTIONS ABOUT RUSSIA, THAT'S
FINE.
BUT THAT'S NOT WHY YOU LOST THE
ELECTION, YOU DEMOCRATS, AND
THIS IS HYSTERIA, AND JEFF
SESSIONS DIDN'T PURE JURY
HIMSELF.
HE DIDN'T THINK IT HAD ANYTHING
TO DO WITH THE QUESTION YOU
ASKED ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE
CAMPAIGN WAS COORDINATING.
THIS IS MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING.
I THINK HE SAEFT TEMPEST IN A
TEAPOT.
YOUR REACTION?
>> WELL, THERE'S ALL KINDS OF
THINGS IN THERE.
ONE, WE DON'T KNOW THE EXTENT TO
WHICH THIS INTERFERENCE WHICH
WAS MASSIVE, THEY HAD THOUSANDS
OF TROLLS ON TOP OF THIS
INTERFERENCE, OF THEIR HACKING,
PUTTING OUT FAKE NEWS.
COLE MISREPRESENTS MY QUESTION.
MY QUESTION WAS SIMPLY, AND IT
WAS A QUESTION THAT SENATOR
SESSIONS OR ATTORNEY GENERAL
SESSIONS DID NOT ANSWER.
BUT THERE'S NO WAY FOR US TO
KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THIS CHANGED
THE ELECTION FOR COLE TO STATE
THAT CATEGORICALLY IS OBVIOUSLY
UNJUSTIFIED.
THIS IS AN ELECTION DECIDED BY
70,000 SLOETS, AND THIS IS A
MASSIVE EFFORT TO CHANGE THE
ELECTION.
SO I WOULD SAY THAT
REPRESENTATIVE COLE IS WAY OFF
BASE HERE.
AND I THINK THAT JUST IS SO
SELF-EVIDENT FROM -- IF YOU KNOW
ALL THE CONTEXT OF MY
QUESTIONING AND THE ANSWER OF
SENATOR SESSIONS.
>> NOW, ONE OF THE REASONS IT
WAS SO IMPORTANT TO GET YOU ON
THIS MORNING IS THAT YOU HAD --
FOR YOU, ESSENTIALLY, VERY
ANIMATED ARGUMENT ABOUT WHAT
YOUR QUESTIONING WAS ABOUT AND
WHAT YOU WANTED.
YOU GOT INTO IT WITH SENATOR
CRUZ AND SENATOR CORNYN ABOUT
BEING MISREPRESENTED IN TERMS OF
WHAT YOU WERE TRYING TO BRING
ABOUT IN YOUR OWN QUESTIONING.
WHAT WAS THAT --
>> BUT THAT WAS ON A DIFFERENT
MATTER.
THAT WAS ON WHETHER SENATOR
SESSIONS, WHO HAD BEEN TURNED
DOWN IN 1986 FOR A FEDERAL
JUDGESHIP BECAUSE IT WAS DEEMED
THAT HE WASN'T RELIABLE ON CIVIL
RIGHTS, TRIED TO REINVENT
HIMSELF BY ANSWERING A
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR OUR HEARING
SAYING OF THE TEN CASES, MOST
IMPORTANT CASES HE PERSONALLY
HANDLED, FOUR OF THESE CIVIL
RIGHTS CASES.
IT TURNS OUT HE DID NOT HANDLE
THEM AT ALL.
>> I GOT IT WAS DIFFERENT
SUBJECT MATTER.
BUT I'M SAYING YOU SEEM TO BE
CONVINCED THAT THE SENATOR
WASN'T BEING STRAIGHT WITH YOU
GUYS.
DO YOU FEEL THIS IS ANOTHER
EXAMPLE OF THAT?
>> I DO.
I THINK THIS WAS EXTRAORDINARILY
MISLEADING.
THAT'S WHY I'M WRITING A LETTER
TO HIM TO CLARIFY HIMSELF.
I THINK YOU SHOULD DO A PRESS
CONFERENCE ON THIS.
>> YOU THINK HE SHOULD RECUSE
HIMSELF.
>> HE SHOULD DEFINITELY RECUSE
HIMSELF.
I THINK HE SHOULD RECUSE HIMSELF
BEFORE KNOWING THAT MEMBERS
OF -- MY QUESTION ON THIS MATTER
CAME OUT IMMEDIATELY AFTER IT
HAD COME OUT THAT MEMBERS OF THE
CAMPAIGN, THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN HAD
INTERACTED REGULARLY WITH THE
RUSSIANS.
SO MY QUESTION WAS WILL YOU --
WAS GOING TO BE WILL YOU RECUSE
YOURSELF IF THAT TURNS OUT TO BE
THE CASE.
HE DIDN'T ANSWER THAT PART OF
THE QUESTION.
HE SAID I WAS A SURROGATE FOR
THE CAMPAIGN AND I NEVER MET
WITH THE RUSSIANS.
THE AMBASSADOR FROM RUSSIA IS A
RUSSIAN.
>> TRUE.
LAST QUESTION, WHAT DO YOU THINK
SHOULD HAPPEN NEXT?
YOU'RE SENDING A LETTER AND WANT
MORE CLARIFICATION.
WHAT ELSE?
>> WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY --
HE SHOULD RIGHT NOW SAY I RECUSE
MYSELF FROM ANY INVESTIGATION BY
THE FBI, ANY INVESTIGATION, IF
WE HAVE TO APPOINT A SPECIAL
PROSECUTOR OR RECUSE MYSELF FROM
THAT PROCESS, HE SHOULD SAY IT'S
CLEARLY LEGITIMATE FOR ANYONE
LISTENING TO THAT ANSWER OR THAT
QUESTION TO NOT TRUST MY
VERACITY ON THIS MATTER.
I DON'T SEE HOW ANYONE -- IF HE
WANTED AN ANSWER TO THAT BY
SAYING, LOOK, I'VE MET WITH THE
RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR A COUPLE
TIMES.
WE DID NOT DISCUSS THE CAMPAIGN
OR THE ELECTION AT THAT TIME, IF
HE HAD SAID THAT, THAT WOULD BE
DIFFERENT.
>> THEN WE WOULD NOT BE HERE
HAVING THIS CONVERSATION

Sen. Franken: Sessions should recuse himself

Latest Posts