U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

25–891 PDF 2017

S. HRG. 115–94 

OPEN HEARING WITH ATTORNEY GENERAL JEFF 

SESSIONS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE 

OF THE

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2017 

Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Intelligence 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

(II) 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE 

[Established by S. Res. 400, 94th Cong., 2d Sess.] 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina, Chairman 

MARK R. WARNER, Virginia, Vice Chairman 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

SUSAN COLLINS, Maine 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

TOM COTTON, Arkansas 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

ANGUS KING, Maine 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

KAMALA HARRIS, California 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky, Ex Officio 

CHUCK SCHUMER, New York, Ex Officio 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona, Ex Officio 

JACK REED, Rhode Island, Ex Officio 

CHRIS JOYNER, Staff Director 

MICHAEL CASEY, Minority Staff Director 

KELSEY STROUD BAILEY, Chief Clerk 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

(III) 

CONTENTS 

JUNE 13, 2017 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Burr, Hon. Richard, Chairman, a U.S. Senator from North Carolina ................ 1 

Warner, Hon. Mark R., Vice Chairman, a U.S. Senator from Virginia .............. 2 

WITNESS 

Sessions, Hon. Jeff, Attorney General of the United States ................................ 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

(1) 

OPEN HEARING WITH ATTORNEY GENERAL 

JEFF SESSIONS 

TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2017 

U.S. SENATE, 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:42 p.m. in Room 

SH–216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard Burr (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Committee Members Present: Senators Burr, Warner, Risch, 

Rubio, Collins, Blunt, Lankford, Cotton, Cornyn, McCain, Feinstein, Wyden, Heinrich, King, Manchin, Harris, and Reed. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BURR, CHAIRMAN, A 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH CAROLINA 

Chairman BURR. I’d like to call the hearing to order, please. 

Attorney General Sessions, I appreciate your willingness to appear before the committee today. I thank you for your years of 

dedicated service as a member of this body and your recent leadership at the Department of Justice. 

As I mentioned when Director Comey appeared before us last 

week, this committee’s role is to be the eyes and ears for the other 

85 members of the United States Senate and for the American people, ensuring that the intelligence community is operating lawfully 

and has the necessary tools to keep America safe. 

The community is a large and diverse place. We recognize the 

gravity of our investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 

U.S. elections. But I remind our constituents that, while we investigate Russia, we are scrutinizing CIA’s budget—while we’re investigating Russia, we are still scrutinizing CIA’s budget, NSA’s 702 

program, our Nation’s satellite program, and the entire IC effort to 

recruit and retain the best talent we can find in the world. 

More often than not, the committee conducts its work behind 

closed doors, a necessary step to ensure that our most sensitive 

sources and methods are protected. The sanctity of these sources 

and methods are at the heart of the intelligence community’s ability to keep us safe and to keep our allies safe from those who seek 

to harm us. 

I’ve said repeatedly that I do not believe any committee—that 

the committee does should be done in public. But I also recognize 

the gravity of the committee’s current investigation and the need 

for the American people to be presented the facts, so that they 

might make their own judgments. 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

2 

It is for that reason that this committee has now held its tenth 

open hearing of 2017, more than double that of the committee in 

recent years, and the fifth on the topic of Russian interference. 

Attorney General Sessions, this venue is your opportunity to separate fact from fiction and to set the record straight on a number 

of allegations reported in the press. For example, there are several 

issues that I’m hopeful we will address today: 

One: did you have any meetings with Russian officials or their 

proxies on behalf of the Trump campaign or during your time as 

Attorney General? 

Two, what was your involvement with candidate Trump’s foreign 

policy team and what were their possible interactions with Russians? 

Three, why did you decide to recuse yourself from the government’s Russia investigation? 

And fourth, what role, if any, did you play in the removal of 

then-FBI Director Comey? 

I look forward to a candid and honest discussion as we continue 

to pursue the truth behind Russia’s interference in the 2016 elections. The committee’s experienced staff is interviewing the relevant parties, having spoken to more than 35 individuals to date, 

to include just yesterday an interview of former Homeland Security 

Secretary Jeh Johnson. We also continue to review some of the 

most sensitive intelligence in our country’s possession. 

As I’ve said previously, we will establish the facts, separate from 

rampant speculation, and lay them out for the American people to 

make their own judgment. Only then will we as a Nation be able 

to put this episode to rest and look to the future. 

I’m hopeful that members will focus their questions today on the 

Russia investigation, and not squander the opportunity by taking 

political or partisan shots. The Vice Chairman and I continue to 

lead this investigation together on what is a highly charged political issue. We may disagree at times, but we remain a unified team 

with a dedicated, focused, and professional staff working tirelessly 

on behalf of the American people to find the truth. 

The committee has made much progress as the political winds 

blow forcefully around us and I think all members would agree 

that, despite a torrent of public debate on who and what committee 

might be best suited to lead on this issue, the Intelligence Committee has lived up to its obligation to move forward with purpose 

and above politics. 

Mr. Attorney General, it’s good to have you back. 

I would now turn to the Vice Chairman for any remarks he 

might have. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK WARNER, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM VIRGINIA 

Vice Chairman WARNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want 

to also thank the way that we are proceeding on this investigation. 

Mr. Attorney General, it’s good to see you again, and we appreciate your appearance on the heels of Mr. Comey’s revealing testimony last week. 

I do, though, want to take a moment on the outset and first express some concern with the process by which we are seeing you, 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

3 

the Attorney General, today. It’s my understanding that you were 

originally scheduled to testify in front of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees today. I know those appearances have 

been canceled to come here instead. 

While we appreciate this testimony before our committee, I believe, and I believe I speak for many of my colleagues—that I believe he should also answer questions from members of those committees and the Judiciary Committee as well. Mr. Attorney General, it’s my hope that you will reschedule those appearances as 

soon as possible. 

In addition, I want to say at the outset that, while we consider 

your appearance today as just the beginning of our interaction with 

you and your Department, Mr. Attorney General, we had always 

expected to talk to you as part of our investigation. We believed it 

would be actually later in the process. We’re glad to accommodate 

your request to speak to us today. But we also expect to have your 

commitment to cooperate with all future requests and make yourself available as necessary to this committee for, as the Chairman 

has indicated, this very important investigation. 

Now let’s move to the subject of today’s discussion. Let’s start 

with the campaign. You were an early and ardent supporter of Mr. 

Trump. In March, you were named as chairman of the Trump campaign’s National Security Advisory Committee. You were much 

more than a surrogate. You were a strategic adviser, who helped 

shape much of the campaign’s national security strategy. No doubt, 

you will have key insights about some of the key Trump associates 

that we’re seeking to hear from in the weeks ahead. 

Questions have also been raised about some of your own interactions with Russian officials during the campaign. During your 

confirmation hearing in January, you said, quote, you ‘‘did not have 

communications with Russians.’’ Senator Leahy later asked you in 

writing whether you’d been in contact with anyone connected to 

any part of Russian government about the 2016 election. You answered, I believe, with a definitive no. 

Despite that fact—despite that, the fact is, as we discovered 

later, that you did have interactions with Russian government officials during the course of the campaign. In March, you acknowledged two meetings with the Russian ambassador. Yet there’s also 

been some public reports of a possible third meeting at the 

Mayflower Hotel on April 27th. 

I hope that today you will help clear up those discrepancies. We 

also expect and hope—this is very important—that you will be willing to provide the committee with any documents that we would 

need to shed light on this issue, such as e-mails or calendars. 

Then there’s the topic of the firing of former FBI Director Comey. 

Last Thursday, we received testimony from Mr. Comey. Under 

oath, he outlined his very troubling interactions with the President, 

as well as the circumstances of his firing. A few disturbing points 

stood out. 

First, Mr. Comey, who has decades of experience at the Department of Justice and at the FBI, serving under presidents of both 

parties, was so unnerved by the actions of the President that he 

felt, quote, ‘‘compelled to fully document every interaction’’ they 

had. 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

4 

Mr. Comey sat where you are sitting today and testified that he 

was concerned that the President of the United States might lie 

about the nature of their meetings. That’s a shocking statement 

from one of our Nation’s top law enforcement officials. 

We also heard that Director Comey took it as a direction from 

the President that he was to drop the FBI’s investigation into 

former National Security Adviser General Mike Flynn. 

Finally, we heard from Mr. Comey that he believes he was fired 

over his handling of the Russia investigation. The President himself confirmed this in statements to the media. This is deeply troubling for all of us who believe, on both sides of the aisle, in preserving the independence of the FBI. 

We have a lot of work in order to follow up on these alarming 

disclosures. Mr. Attorney General, your testimony today is an opportunity to begin the process of asking those questions. 

For instance, again—I know others will ask about this—you 

recused yourself from the Russia investigation, yet you participated 

in the firing of Mr. Comey over the handling of that same investigation. We want to ask you about how you view your recusal and 

whether you believe you’ve complied with it fully. 

In addition, we heard from Mr. Comey last week that the President asked you to leave the Oval Office so that he could speak one 

on one with Mr. Comey. Again, a very concerning action. We will 

need to hear from you about how you viewed the President’s request and whether you thought it was appropriate. 

We will also want to know if you are aware of any attempts by 

the President to enlist leaders in the intelligence community to undermine this very same Russia investigation. 

Most importantly, our committee will want to hear what you are 

doing to ensure that the Russians or any other foreign adversaries 

cannot attack our democratic process like this ever again. 

I’m concerned that the President still does not recognize the severity of the threat. He to date I believe has not even acknowledged the unanimous conclusions of the U.S. intelligence community that Russia massively intervened in our elections. 

The threat we face is real, and it’s not limited to us. The recent 

events in France are again a stark reminder that all Western democracies must take steps to protect themselves. I believe the 

United States can and must be a leader in this effort, but it will 

require our Administration to get serious about this matter. 

Finally, in the past several weeks we’ve seen a concerning pattern of administration officials refusing to answer public, unclassified questions about allegations about the President and this investigation. We had a hearing with this subject last week. I want to 

commend the Chairman, who at the end of that hearing made very 

clear that our witnesses—that it was not acceptable for our witnesses to come before Congress without answers. The American 

people deserve to know what’s going on here. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to the witness’s testimony. 

Chairman BURR. Thank you, Vice Chairman. 

Attorney General Sessions, if you would stand, I will administer 

the oath to you. Raise your right hand if you would, please. 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

5 

Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth and the whole truth and 

nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

General SESSIONS. I do. 

Chairman BURR. Please, be seated. 

Thank you, Attorney General Sessions. The floor is yours. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF 

THE UNITED STATES 

General SESSIONS. Thank you very much, Chairman Burr and 

Ranking Member Warner, for allowing me to publicly appear before 

your committee today. I appreciate the committee’s critically important efforts to investigate Russian interference with our democratic 

processes. Such interference can never be tolerated and I encourage 

every effort to get to the bottom of any such allegations. As you 

know, the Deputy Attorney General has appointed a special counsel to investigate the matters related to the Russian interference 

in the 2016 election. 

I’m here today to address several issues that have been specifically raised before this committee, and I appreciate the opportunity 

to respond to questions as fully as the Lord enables me to do so. 

But, as I advised you, Mr. Chairman, and consistent with longstanding Department of Justice practice, I cannot and will not violate my duty to protect the confidential communications I have 

with the President. Now, let me address some issues directly. 

I did not have any private meetings, nor do I recall any conversations with any Russian officials at the Mayflower Hotel. I did not 

attend any meetings at that event separately. Prior to the speech 

I attended by the President that day, I attended a reception with 

my staff that included at least two dozen people and President 

Trump. Though I do recall several conversations that I had during 

that pre-speech reception, I do not have any recollection of meeting 

or talking to the Russian ambassador or any other Russian officials. If any brief interaction occurred in passing with the Russian 

ambassador during that reception, I do not remember it. After the 

speech, I was interviewed by the news media—there was an area 

for that in a different room—and then I left the hotel. 

But whether I ever attended a reception where the Russian ambassador was also present is entirely beside the point of this investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 campaign. Let me 

state this clearly, colleagues. I have never met with or had any conversation with any Russians or any foreign officials concerning any 

type of interference with any campaign or election in the United 

States. Further, I have no knowledge of any such conversations by 

anyone connected to the Trump campaign. 

I was your colleague in this body for 20 years, at least some of 

you, and the suggestion that I participated in any collusion, that 

I was aware of any collusion with the Russian government to hurt 

this country, which I have served with honor for 35 years, or to undermine the integrity of our democratic process, is an appalling 

and detestable lie. 

Relatedly, there is the assertion that I did not answer Senator 

Franken’s question honestly at my confirmation hearing. Colleagues, that is false—I can’t say colleagues, now. I’m no longer 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

6 

part of this body. But, former colleagues, that is false. This is what 

happened. 

Senator Franken asked me a rambling question, after some six 

hours of testimony, that included dramatic new allegations that the 

United States intelligence community, the U.S. intelligence community, had advised President-elect Trump, quote, ‘‘that there was a 

continuing exchange of information during the campaign between 

Trump’s surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government,’’ close quote. 

I was taken aback by that explosive allegation, which he said 

was being reported as breaking news that very day and which I 

had not heard. I wanted to refute that immediately, any suggestion 

that I was part of such an activity. 

I replied, quote—I replied to Senator Franken this way, quote, 

‘‘Senator Franken, I’m not aware of any of those activities. I have 

been called a surrogate a time or two in that campaign, and I did 

not—didn’t have—did not have communications with the Russians, 

and—and I’m unable to comment on it,’’ close quote. 

That was the context in which I was asked the question. And in 

that context, my answer was a fair and correct response to the 

charge as I understood it. I was responding to this allegation that 

we had met—surrogates had been meeting with the Russians on a 

regular basis. 

It simply did not occur to me to go further than the context of 

the question and to list any conversations that I may have had 

with Russians in routine situations, as I had many routine meetings with other foreign officials. 

So please hear me now. And it was only in March, after my confirmation hearing, that a reporter asked my spokesperson whether 

I had ever met with any Russian officials. This was the first time 

that question had squarely been posed to me. 

On the same day, we provided that reporter with the information 

related to the meeting that I and my staff had held in my Senate 

office with Ambassador Kislyak, as well as the brief encounter in 

July after a speech that I had given during the convention in 

Cleveland, Ohio. I also provided the reporter with a list of 25 foreign ambassador meetings that I’d had during 2016. In addition, I 

provided supplemental testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee to explain this event. 

So I readily acknowledged these two meetings and certainly not 

one thing happened that was improper in any one of those meetings. 

Let me also explain clearly the circumstances of my recusal from 

the investigation into the Russian interference with the 2016 election. Please, colleagues, hear me on this. 

I was sworn in as Attorney General on Thursday, February 9th. 

The very next day, as I had promised the Judiciary Committee I 

would do, at least at an early date, I met with career Department 

officials, including a senior ethics official, to discuss some things 

publicly reported in the press that might have some bearing on 

whether or not I should recuse myself in this case. 

From that point, February 10th, until I announced my formal 

recusal on March 2nd, I was never briefed on any investigative details, did not access any information about the investigation. I reLAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

7 

ceived only the limited information that the Department’s career 

officials determined was necessary for me to form and make a 

recusal decision. As such, I have no knowledge about this investigation as it is ongoing today beyond what has been publicly reported. 

I don’t even read that carefully. And I have taken no action whatsoever with regard to any such investigation. 

On the date of my formal recusal, my chief of staff sent an e-mail 

to the heads of relevant departments, including by name to Director Comey of the FBI, to instruct them to inform their staffs of this 

recusal and to advise them not to brief me or involve me in any 

way in any such matters. And in fact they have not. 

Importantly, I recused myself not because of any asserted wrongdoing or any belief that I may have been involved in any wrongdoing in the campaign, but because a Department of Justice regulation, 28 CFR 45.2, I felt required it. That regulation states in effect 

that Department employees should not participate in investigations 

of a campaign if they served as a campaign adviser. 

So the scope of my recusal, however, does not and cannot interfere with my ability to oversee the Department of Justice, including 

the FBI, which has an $8 billion budget and 35,000 employees. 

I presented to the President my concerns and those of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein about the ongoing leadership issues 

at the FBI, as stated in my letter recommending the removal of 

Mr. Comey, along with the Deputy Attorney General’s memorandum on that issue, which have been released publicly by the 

White House. Those represent a clear statement of my views. I 

adopted Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein’s points that he made 

in his memorandum and made my recommendation. 

It is absurd, frankly, to suggest that a recusal from a single specific investigation would render the Attorney General unable to 

manage the leadership of the various Department of Justice law 

enforcement components that conduct thousands of investigations. 

Finally, during his testimony, Mr. Comey discussed a conversation that he and I had about the meeting Mr. Comey had with the 

President. I’m happy to share with the committee my recollection 

of that conversation that I had with Mr. Comey. 

Following a routine morning threat briefing, Mr. Comey spoke to 

me and my chief of staff. While he did not provide me with any of 

the substance of his conversation with the President, apparently 

the day before, Mr. Comey expressed concern about proper communications protocol with the White House and with the President. 

I responded—he didn’t recall this, but—I responded to his comment by agreeing that the FBI and the Department of Justice 

needed to be careful to follow Department policies regarding appropriate contacts with the White House. Mr. Comey had served in the 

Department for better than two decades, and I was confident that 

he understood and would abide by the well-established rules limiting communications with the White House, especially about ongoing investigations. That’s what’s so important to control. 

My comments encouraged him to do just that, and indeed, as I 

understand it, he in fact did that. Our Department of Justice rules 

on proper communications between the Department and the White 

House have been in place for years. Mr. Comey well knew them. 

I thought and assumed, correctly, that he complied with them. 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

8 

So I’ll finish with this. I recused myself from any investigation 

into the campaign for President, but I did not recuse myself from 

defending my honor against scurrilous and false allegations. At all 

times throughout the course of the campaign, the confirmation 

process, and since becoming Attorney General, I have dedicated 

myself to the highest standards. I’ve earned a reputation for that 

at home and in this body, I believe, over decades of performance. 

The people of this country expect an honest and transparent government and that’s what we’re giving them. This President wants 

to focus on the people of this country, to ensure they are treated 

fairly and kept safe. The Trump agenda is to improve the lives of 

the American people. I know some have different ways of achieving 

this and different agendas, but that is his agenda and it’s one I 

share. 

Importantly, as Attorney General I have a responsibility to enforce the laws of this Nation, to protect this country from its enemies, and to ensure the fair administration of justice. And I intend to work every day with our fine team and the superb professionals in the Department of Justice to advance the important 

work we have to do. 

These false attacks, the innuendoes, the leaks, you can be sure 

will not intimidate me. In fact, these events have only strengthened my resolve to fulfill my duty, my duty to reduce crime, to support our Federal, State and local law enforcement officers who 

work on our streets every day. 

Just last week, it was reported that overdose deaths in this country are rising faster than ever recorded. Last year was 52,000. The 

New York Times just estimated next year will be 62,000 overdose 

deaths. The murder rate is up over 10 percent, the largest increase 

since 1968. 

Together, we are telling the gangs, the cartels, the fraudsters, 

and the terrorists, we are coming after you. Every one of our citizens, no matter who they are or where they live, has the right to 

be safe in their homes and communities. And I will not be deterred. 

I will not allow this great Department to be deterred from its vital 

mission. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Warner. I have a 

great honor to appear before you today, and I will do my best to 

answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Attorney General Sessions follows:] 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

9 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 1 here 25891.001

ilepnrtment nf 3htntite 

TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2017 

WWW.JUSTICE.GOV 

(202) 5!4-2007 

TTY (866) 544-5309 

ATTORNEY GENERAL JEFF SESSIONS PREPARED REMARKS TO THE UNITED 

STATES SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Thank you Chairman Burr and Ranking Member Warner for allowing me to publicly 

appear before the committee today. 

I appreciate the Committee's critically im'"'riHnt Russian 

interference with our democratic process. Such int•"t''"'"'c" can never be tolerated and I 

encourage every effort to get to the bottom such allegations. 

As you know, the Deputy General has appointed a special counsel to investigate 

matters related to Russian interference in 2016 election. I am here to address several 

issues that have been specifically raised before this committee, and l the opportunity 

to respond to questions as fully as l am able to do so. But as I you, Mr. Chairman, and 

consistent with long-standing Department of Justice l cannot and will not violate my 

duty to protect confidential communications with the nc><u<om. 

Now, let me address some issues directly: l did not have any private meetings nor do I 

recall any conversations with any Russian officials at the Mayflower Hotel. I did not attend any 

meetings at that event. Prior to the l attended a reception with staff that included at 

least two dozen people and President Though l do recall conversations l had 

during that pre-speech reception, I do not any recollection of meeting or talking to the 

Russian Ambassador or any other Russian officials. If any brief interaction occurred in passing 

with the Russian Ambassador during that l do not remember it. After the speech, I 

was interviewed by the news media, which gathered as I remember in a different room, and 

then !left the hotel. 

But whether I ever attended a reception where the Russian Ambassador was also present 

is entirely beside the point of this into Russian interference with the 2016 

campaigns. Let me state this clearly: l never met with or had any conversations with any 

Russians or any foreign officials any of interference with any or 

election. Further, l have no knowledge of any conversations by anyone to the 

Trump campaign. I was your colleague in this body for 20 years, and the suggestion that l 
10 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 2 here 25891.002

participated in any collusion or that l was aware of any collusion with the Russian government to 

hurt this country, which I have served with honor for over 35 years, or to undermine the integrity 

of our democratic process, is an appalling and detestable lie. 

Relatedly, there is the assertion that! did not answer Senator Franken's question honestly 

at my confirmation hearing. That is false. This is how it happened. He asked me a rambling 

question that included dramatic, new allegations that the United States intelligence community 

had advised President-elect Trump that "there was a continuing exchange of information during 

the campaign between Trump's and intermediaries for the Russian government." I 

was taken aback by these explosive which he said were being reported in breaking 

news that day. I wanted to refute immediately any that I was a part of such an 

activity. I replied, "Senator Franken, I'm not aware of those activities. l have been called 

a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and l didn't -did not have communications 

with the Russians, and I'm unable to comment on it." 

That was the context in which l was asked the question, and in that context, my answer 

was a fair and correct response to the charge as l understood it. It simply did not occur to me to 

go further than the context of the question and list any conversations I may have had with 

Russians in routine situations, as I had with numerous other foreign officials. 

Please hear me now. It was that a reporter asked my 

spokesperson whether I had ever met any Russian This was the first time that 

question had been posed. On the same we provided that reporter with the information 

related to the meeting l and my staff had in my Senate office with Ambassador Kislyak, as 

well as the brief encounter in July after a speech that I had 

Cleveland, Ohio. I also provided the reporter a list of all 25 ambassador meetings I had 

held during 2016. In addition,! provided testimony to the Senate Judiciary 

Committee to explain this. l readily these two meetings. Certainly nothing 

improper occurred. 

Let me also explain clearly the circumstances of my recusal from the investigation into 

the Russian interference with the 2016 election. I was sworn in as Attorney General on 

Thursday, February 9th. The very next day, I met with career officials, including a 

senior ethics official, to discuss some things publicly reported in press and that might have 

some bearing on the issue ofrecusal. From that point, February lOth, until I announced my 

formal recusal on March 2nd, l was never briefed on investigative details and did not access 

information about the investigation; l received only the information that the 

Department's career officials determined was to inform my recusa! decision. As such, 

I have no knowledge about this investigation beyond has been publicly reported, and l have 

taken no action with regard to any such investigation. On the date of my formal recusal, my 

Chief of Staff sent an email to the heads of the relevant including by name to 

Director Corney of the FBI, to instruct them to inform staffs of this recusal and to advise 

them not to brief me or involve me in any such matters. And in fact, they have not. Importantly, 

I recused myself not because of any asserted wrongdoing on my part during the campaign, but 

because a Department of Justice regulation, 28 CFR 45.2, required it. That regulation states, in 
11 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 3 here 25891.003

effect, that Department employees should not nar1:1c!llate in investigations of a campaign if they 

have served as a campaign advisor. 

The scope of my recusal, however, does not and cannot interfere with my ability to 

oversee the Department of Justice, including the FBI, which has an $8 billion budget and 35,000 

employees. I presented to the President concerns, and those Attorney General Rod 

Rosenstein, about the at the FBI as stated in my letter recommending 

the removal of Mr. Corney Deputy Attorney General's memorandum, which have 

been released publicly by the House. It is a clear statement of my views. It is absurd, 

frankly, to suggest that a recusal from a specific investigation would render an Attorney 

General unable to manage the various Department of Justice law enforcement 

componentsthatconductthousands 

Finally, during his testimony, Mr. Corney discussed a conversation he and l had about a 

meeting Mr. Corney had with the President. l am happy to share with the committee my 

recollection of the conversation I had with Mr. Following a routine morning threat 

briefing, Mr. Corney spoke to me and my While he did not provide me with 

of the substance of his conversation with the President, Mr. expressed concern about 

proper communications protocol with the White House and with President. I responded to 

his comment by agreeing that the FBI and Department of Justice needed to be careful to follow 

Department policies regarding appropriate contacts with the White House. Mr. Corney had 

served in the Department of Justice for the better part of two decades, and l was confident that 

Mr. Corney understood and would abide by the Department's well-established rules governing 

any communications with the White House about My comments 

encouraged him to do just that and indeed, as I Our Department of Justice 

rules on proper communication between the and the White House have been in place 

for years. Mr. Corney well knew them, I and assumed correctly that he complied with 

them. 

I will finish with this. I recused myself from any investigation into the campaigns for 

President, but I did not recuse myself from defending my honor scurrilous and false 

allegations. At all times throughout the course of the carmpatgn, 

since becoming Attorney General, l have dedicated 

The people of this expect an honest and transparent government and that is what 

we are giving them. This wants to focus on the people of this country to ensure they 

are treated fairly and kept safe. The Trump agenda is to improve the lives of the American 

people. l know some have other agendas, but that is his agenda and it is one l share. 

Importantly, as Attorney General! have a to enforce the laws of this 

Nation, to protect this from its enemies, and to ensure the fair administration of justice. 

intend to work every day our fine team and the professionals in the Department of 

Justice to advance the important work we have to do. false attacks, the innuendo, and the 

leaks, you can be sure, will not intimidate me. In fact, these events have only strengthened my 

resolve to fulfill my duty to reduce crime, and to support our federal, state, and local law 

enforcement officers who work our streets every day. Just last week, it was reported that 
12 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 4 here 25891.004

overdose deaths in this country are rising faster than ever recorded. The murder rate is up over 

10 percent-the largest increase since 1968. we are telling the gangs, the cartels, the 

fraudsters, and the terrorists-we are you. Every one of our citizens, no matter who 

they are or where they live, has the right to safe in their homes and communities. And I wiH 

not be deterred, and J will not allow this great Department to be deterred from its vital mission. 

Thank you. 

### 
13 

Chairman BURR. General Sessions, thank you. Thank you for 

that testimony. 

I’d like to note for members, the Chair and the Vice Chairman 

will be recognized for 10 minutes, members will be recognized for 

5 minutes. And I’d like to remind our members that we are in open 

session. No references to classified or committee sensitive materials 

should be used relative to your questions. With that, I recognize 

myself at this time for ten minutes. 

General Sessions, you talked about the Mayflower Hotel, where 

the President gave his first foreign policy speech, and it’s been covered in the press that the President was there, you were there, others were there. From your testimony, you said you don’t remember 

whether Ambassador Kislyak was there, the Russian ambassador. 

Is that correct? 

General SESSIONS. I did not remember that, but I understand he 

was there. And so I don’t doubt that he was. I believe that representations are correct. In fact, I recently saw a video of him coming into the room. 

Chairman BURR. But you never remember having a conversation 

or a meeting with Ambassador Kislyak? 

General SESSIONS. I do not. 

Chairman BURR. And there was—in that event, was there ever 

a private room setting that you were involved in? 

General SESSIONS. No, other than the reception area that was 

shut off from, I guess, the main crowd of a couple of dozen, two to 

three dozen people. 

Chairman BURR. I would take for granted that at an event like 

this the President shook some hands. 

General SESSIONS. Yes, he came in and shook hands in the 

group. 

Chairman BURR. Okay. You mentioned that there were some 

staff that were with you at that event. 

General SESSIONS. My legislative director at the time—— 

Chairman BURR. Your Senate staff? 

General SESSIONS. Senate legislative director, who was a retired 

U.S. Army colonel, who’d served on the Armed Services staff with 

Senator John Warner before she joined my staff, was with me in 

the reception area and throughout the rest of the events. 

Chairman BURR. Would you say that you were there as a United 

States Senator or as a surrogate of the campaign for this event? 

General SESSIONS. I came there as a interested person, very anxious to see how President Trump would do in his first major foreign 

policy address. I believe he’d only given one major speech before, 

that one maybe at the Jewish AIPAC event. So it was an interesting time for me to observe his delivery and the message he 

would make. That was my main purpose of being there. 

Chairman BURR. Now, you reported two other meetings with Ambassador Kislyak: one in July on the sidelines of the Republican 

Convention, I believe; and one in September in your Senate office. 

Have you had any other interactions with government officials over 

the year in a campaign capacity? I’m not asking you from the 

standpoint of your Senate life—— 

General SESSIONS. Yeah. Yeah. 

Chairman BURR [continuing]. But in a campaign capacity. 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

14 

General SESSIONS. No, Mr. Chairman. I’ve stretched my—racked 

my brain to make sure I could answer any of those questions correctly, and I did not. 

I would just offer for you that, when asked about whether I had 

any meetings with Russians by the reporter in March, we immediately recalled the conversation, the encounter I had at the convention and the meeting in my office, and made that public. I never 

intended not to include that. I would have gladly have reported the 

meeting, the encounter that may have occurred, that some say occurred, in the Mayflower, if I had remembered it, or if it actually 

occurred, which I don’t remember that it did. 

Chairman BURR. General Sessions, on March 2nd, 2017, you formally recused yourself from any involvement in the Russian investigation being conducted by the FBI and the Department of Justice. 

What are the specific reasons that you chose to recuse yourself? 

General SESSIONS. Well, the specific reason, Mr. Chairman, is a 

CFR, a Code of Federal Regulations, put out by the Department of 

Justice, part of the Department of Justice rules. And it says this— 

I’ll read from it: 28 CFR 45.2, ‘‘Unless authorized, no employee 

shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has 

a personal or political relationship with any person involved in the 

conduct of an investigation.’’ It goes on to say in a political campaign. And it says, ‘‘If you have a close identification with an elected official or a candidate arising from service as a principal adviser, you should not participate in an investigation of that campaign.’’ 

Chairman BURR. So would you—— 

General SESSIONS. Many have suggested that my recusal is because I felt I was a subject of the investigation myself, that I may 

have done something wrong. But this is the reason I recused myself. I felt I was required to under the rules of the Department of 

Justice, and as the leader of the Department of Justice, I should 

comply with the rules, obviously. 

Chairman BURR. So did your legal counsel basically know from 

day one you would have to recuse yourself of this investigation because of the current statute? 

General SESSIONS. Well, I do have a timeline of what occurred. 

I was sworn in on the 9th, I believe, of February. I then on the 

10th had my first meeting to generally discuss this issue, where 

the CFR was not discussed. 

We had several other meetings and it became clear to me over 

time that I qualified as a significant—a principal adviser type person to the campaign, and it was the appropriate and right thing 

for me—— 

Chairman BURR. So this could—— 

General SESSIONS [continuing]. To recuse myself. 

Chairman BURR [continuing]. This could explain Director 

Comey’s comments that he knew that there was a likelihood you 

would recuse yourself, because he was probably familiar with the 

same statute? 

General SESSIONS. Well, I think probably so. I’m sure that the attorneys in the Department of Justice probably communicated with 

him, because, Mr. Chairman, let me say this to you clearly. In effect, as a matter of fact I recused myself that day. I never received 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

15 

any information about the campaign. I thought there was a problem with me being able to serve as Attorney General over this 

issue, and I felt I would possibly have to recuse myself, and I took 

the position, correctly I believe, not to involve myself in the campaign in any way, and I did not. 

Chairman BURR. You made a reference to your chief of staff 

sending out an e-mail immediately notifying internally of your decision to recuse. Would you ask your chief of staff to make that email available? 

General SESSIONS. We would be pleased to do—— 

Chairman BURR. Thank—thank you. 

General SESSIONS [continuing]. So and I think I have it with me 

now. 

Chairman BURR. Thank you, General Sessions. 

Have you had any interactions with the special counsel, Robert 

Mueller, since his appointment? 

General SESSIONS. I have not. 

With regard to the e-mail we sent out, Mr. Comey, Director 

Comey, indicated that he did not know when I recused myself or 

did not receive notice. One of those e-mails went to him by name. 

So a lot happens in our offices. I’m not accusing him of any wrongdoing, but in fact it was sent to him and to his name. 

Chairman BURR. Okay. 

General Sessions, as you said, Mr. Comey testified at length before the committee about his interactions with the President, in 

some cases highlighting your presence at those meetings. And you 

addressed the meeting where all were asked to leave except for Director Comey and he had a private meeting with the President. 

And you said that he did inform you of how uncomfortable that 

was, and your recommendation was that the FBI and DOJ needed 

to follow the rules limiting further correspondence. 

Did Director Comey ever express additional discomfort with conversations that the President might have had with him? Because 

he had two additional meetings and I think a total of six phone 

calls. 

General SESSIONS. That is correct. There’s nothing wrong with 

the President having a communication with the FBI director. What 

is problematic for any Department of Justice employee is to talk to 

any Cabinet persons or White House officials, high officials, about 

ongoing investigations that are not properly cleared through the 

top levels of the Department of Justice. 

And so it was a—regulation I think is healthy. I thought we 

needed, and strongly believed, we needed to restore discipline within our Department, to adhere to just those kind of rules, plus leaking rules and some of the other things that I think are a bit lax 

and need to be restored. 

Chairman BURR. You couldn’t have had a conversation with the 

President about the investigation, because you were never briefed 

on the investigation? 

General SESSIONS. That is correct. 

I would note that, with regard to the private meeting that Director Comey had—by his own admission, I believe there are as many 

as six such meetings. Several of them he had with President 

Trump. I think he had two with President Obama. So it’s not imLAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

16 

proper per se. But it would not be justified for a Department official to share information about an ongoing investigation without 

prior review and clearance from above. 

Chairman BURR. General Sessions, just one last question. You 

were the chair of this foreign policy team for the Trump campaign. 

To the best your knowledge, did that team ever meet? 

General SESSIONS. We met a couple of times, maybe. Some of the 

people did. But we never functioned, frankly, Mr. Chairman, as a 

coherent team. We had various meetings—— 

Chairman BURR. Were there any members—were there any 

members of that team you never met? 

General SESSIONS. Yes. 

Chairman BURR. Okay. 

Vice Chairman. 

Vice Chairman WARNER. Thank you, General Sessions. 

As I mentioned in my opening statement, we appreciate your appearance here, but we do see this as the first step, and I would just 

like to get your commitment that you will agree to make yourself 

available as the committee needs in the weeks and months ahead. 

General SESSIONS. Senator Warner, I will commit to appear before this committee and other committees as appropriate. I don’t 

think it’s good policy to continually bring Cabinet members or the 

Attorney General before multiple committees, going over the same 

things over and over—— 

Vice Chairman WARNER. I know other members of the Judiciary 

Committee or Appropriations Committee may want—— 

General SESSIONS. Well, they—I’m sure—— 

Vice Chairman WARNER [continuing]. To raise those issues. But 

let me just ask about this committee. 

General SESSIONS. I just gave you my answer, Mister—— 

Vice Chairman WARNER. Thank you. 

What about, can we also get your commitment, since there will 

be questions about some of these meetings that took place or not, 

that we could get access to documents or memoranda, your daybook 

or something, so we can—— 

General SESSIONS. Mr. Vice Chairman, we will be glad to provide 

appropriate responses to your questions and review them carefully—— 

Vice Chairman WARNER. Thank you. 

General SESSIONS [continuing]. And try to be responsive. 

Vice Chairman WARNER. Yesterday a friend of the President was 

reported suggesting that President Trump was considering removing Director Mueller as special counsel. Do you have confidence in 

Director Mueller’s ability to conduct his investigation fairly and impartially? 

General SESSIONS. Well, first, I don’t know about these reports, 

and have no basis to ascertain their—— 

Vice Chairman WARNER. But I’m asking you, sir—I’m asking— 

do you—— 

General SESSIONS [continuing]. Validity. I have known Mr. 

Mueller over the years. He served 12 years as FBI Director. I knew 

him before that. And I have confidence in Mr. Mueller. 

Vice Chairman WARNER. So you have confidence he can do his 

job? 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

17 

General SESSIONS. But I am not going to discuss any 

hypotheticals or what might be a factual situation in the future 

that I’m not aware of today, because I know nothing about the investigation and—— 

Vice Chairman WARNER. Do you believe—— 

General SESSIONS [continuing]. I fully recuse myself from—— 

Vice Chairman WARNER. I’ve got a series of questions, sir. Do you 

believe the President has confidence in Director Mueller? 

General SESSIONS. I have no idea. I’ve not talked to him about 

it. 

Vice Chairman WARNER. Now, will you commit to this committee 

not to take any personal actions that might result in Director 

Mueller’s firing or dismissal? 

General SESSIONS. Well, I think I probably could say that with 

confidence, because I’m recused from the investigation. In fact, the 

way it works, Senator Warner, is that the acting Attorney General—— 

Vice Chairman WARNER. I’m aware of the—— 

General SESSIONS [continuing]. For this investigation—— 

Vice Chairman WARNER [continuing]. Process, but I just wanted 

to get you on the record that you would not—— 

General SESSIONS [continuing]. Is Deputy Attorney General Rod 

Rosenstein—— 

Vice Chairman WARNER [continuing]. With your recusal, you 

would not take any actions to try to have Special Investigator 

Mueller removed. 

General SESSIONS. I wouldn’t think that would be appropriate for 

me to do. 

Vice Chairman WARNER. Yes, sir, I agree. 

To your knowledge, have any Department of Justice officials 

been involved with conversations about any possibility of presidential pardons about any of the individuals involved with the Russia investigation? 

General SESSIONS. Mr. Vice Chairman, I’m not able to comment 

on conversations with high officials within the White House. That 

would be a violation of the communications rule that I have to adhere to. 

Vice Chairman WARNER. Just so I can understand, is the basis 

of that unwillingness to answer based on executive privilege, or 

what? 

General SESSIONS. it’s a longstanding policy of the Department 

of Justice not to comment on conversations that the Attorney General has had with the President of the United States, for confidential reasons that really are founded in the coequal branch powers 

in the Constitution of the United States. 

Vice Chairman WARNER. But that—but just so I’m understanding, does that mean, are you claiming executive privilege here 

today, sir? 

General SESSIONS. I’m not claiming executive privilege, because 

that’s the President’s power and I have no power to claim executive 

privilege. 

Vice Chairman WARNER. What about—what about conversations 

with other Department of Justice or other White House officials 

about potential pardons, not the President, sir? 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

18 

General SESSIONS. Mr. Vice Chairman, without in any way suggesting that I have had any conversations concerning pardons, totally apart from that, there are privileges of communications within the Department of Justice that we share, all of us do. We have 

a right to have full and robust debate within the Department of 

Justice. We encourage people to speak up and argue cases on different sides. And those arguments are not—— 

Vice Chairman WARNER. I would hope, though—— 

General SESSIONS [continuing]. To be revealed. Historically, 

we’ve seen that they shouldn’t be revealed. 

Vice Chairman WARNER [continuing]. I would hope that you 

would agree that, since you’ve recused yourself from this investigation, that if the President or others would pardon someone during 

the midst of this investigation, our investigation or Director 

Mueller’s investigation, that would be, I would think, problematic. 

One of the comments you made in your testimony was that you’d 

reached this conclusion about the performance of then-Director 

Comey’s ability to lead the FBI, that you agreed with Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein’s memo. The fact that you’d worked with 

Director Comey for some time—did you ever have a conversation 

as a superior of Director Comey with his failure to perform or some 

of these accusations that he wasn’t running the FBI in a good way, 

or that somehow the FBI was—is in turmoil? Did you have any 

conversations with Director Comey about those subjects? 

General SESSIONS. I did not. 

Vice Chairman WARNER. So you were his superior, and there 

were some fairly harsh things said about Director Comey. You 

never thought it was appropriate to raise those concerns before he 

was actually terminated by the President? 

General SESSIONS. I did not do so. A memorandum was prepared 

by the Deputy Attorney General, who evaluated his performance 

and noted some serious problems with it. One of—— 

Vice Chairman WARNER. And you agreed with those evaluations? 

General SESSIONS. I agreed with those. In fact, Senator Warner, 

we had talked about it even before I was confirmed and before he 

was confirmed. It’s something that we both agreed to, that a fresh 

start at the FBI was probably the best—— 

Vice Chairman WARNER. It just again seems a little—I could understand if you talked about that before you came on, you had a 

chance for a fresh start. There was no fresh start. Suddenly, we’re 

in the midst of the investigation, and with timing that seems a little peculiar, what kind of at least to me was out of the blue, the 

President fires the FBI director. And if there are all these problems 

of disarray and a lack of esprit de corps at the FBI, all things that 

the acting director of the FBI denied is the case, I would have 

thought that somebody would have had that kind of conversation 

with Director Comey. He was at least owed that. 

Let’s go to the May—or the April 27th meeting. As has been 

brought up, and I think the Chairman brought it up, by the time 

April 27th came around you’d already been named as the chair of 

then-candidate Trump’s national security advisor. So showing up at 

that meeting would be appropriate, not only—— 

General SESSIONS. That was the Mayflower Hotel? 

Vice Chairman WARNER. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

19 

My understanding was that the President’s son-in-law, Jared 

Kushner was at that, was at that meeting as well? 

General SESSIONS. I believe he was, yes. 

Vice Chairman WARNER. You don’t recollect whether Mr. 

Kushner had any conversations with Ambassador Kislyak at that 

session? 

General SESSIONS. I do not. 

Vice Chairman WARNER. And to the best of your memory, you 

had no conversation with Ambassador Kislyak at that meeting? 

General SESSIONS. I don’t recall it, Senator Warner. It would’ve 

been certainly, I can assure you, nothing improper, if I’d had a conversation with him. And it’s conceivable that occurred. I just don’t 

remember it. 

Vice Chairman WARNER. But there was nothing in your notes or 

memory so that, when you had a chance—and you did, and I appreciate—correct the record about the other two sessions in response 

to Senator Franken and Senator Leahy, this one didn’t pop into 

your memory that maybe in the overabundance of caution that you 

ought to report that, this session as well? 

General SESSIONS. Well, I guess I could say that I possibly had 

a meeting, but I still do not recall it. And I did not in any way fail 

to record something in my testimony or in my subsequent letter, 

intentionally false. 

Vice Chairman WARNER. I understand that, sir. I’m just trying 

to understand. When you corrected the record, and clearly by the 

time you had a chance to correct the record I would’ve thought that 

you would’ve known that Ambassador Kislyak was at that April 

27th session. It received some quite a bit of press notoriety. 

And again, echoing what the Chairman has said, just again for 

the record, there was no other meeting with any other officials of 

the Russian government during the campaign season? 

General SESSIONS. Not to my recollection. And I would just say, 

with regard to the two encounters, one at the Mayflower Hotel that 

you referred to—— 

Vice Chairman WARNER. Yes, sir. 

General SESSIONS [continuing]. I came there not knowing he was 

going to be there. I don’t have any recollection of even knowing he 

would be there. I didn’t have any communications with him before 

or after that event. 

And likewise, at the event at the convention, I went off the convention grounds to a college campus for an event that had been set 

up—— 

Vice Chairman WARNER. But at the Mayflower, at the Mayflower 

event—— 

General SESSIONS. Let me just follow this up on that one. I didn’t 

know he would be in the audience and had no—— 

Vice Chairman WARNER. But at the Mayflower—— 

General SESSIONS. Okay. 

Vice Chairman WARNER [continuing]. There was this, I guess, 

kind of VIP reception first, and then people went in to the speech. 

Is that—just so I get a—— 

General SESSIONS. That’s my impression. That’s my recollection. 

Vice Chairman WARNER. And you were part of the VIP reception? 

General SESSIONS. Yes. 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

20 

Vice Chairman WARNER. Yes, sir. 

General Sessions, one of the again troubling things that I need 

to sort through is, Mr. Comey’s testimony last week was that he 

felt uncomfortable when the President asked everyone else to leave 

the room. He left the impression that you lingered, with perhaps 

a sense that you felt uncomfortable about it as well. I’m going to 

allow you to, obviously, answer and correct if that’s not the right 

impression. 

After this meeting took place, which clearly Director Comey felt 

had some level of uncomfortableness, you never asked Director 

Comey what took place in that meeting? 

General SESSIONS. Well, I would just say it this way. We were 

there, I was standing there, and, without revealing any conversation that took place, what I do recall is that I did depart, I believe 

everyone else did depart, and Director Comey was sitting in front 

of the President’s desk and they were talking. So that’s what I do 

remember. 

I believe it was the next day that he said something, expressed 

concern about being left alone with the President. But that in itself 

is not problematic. He did not tell me at that time any details 

about anything that was said that was improper. 

I affirmed his concern that we should be following the proper 

guidelines of the Department of Justice and basically backed him 

up in his concerns and that he should not carry on any conversation with the President or anyone else about an investigation in a 

way that was not proper. 

I felt he, so long in the Department, former Deputy Attorney 

General, as I recall, knew those policies probably a good deal better 

than I did. 

Vice Chairman WARNER. Thank you, sir. 

And I thank you, Mr. Chairman. But it did appear that Mr. 

Comey felt that the conversation was improper? 

General SESSIONS. He was concerned about it. And his recollection of what he said to me about his concern is consistent with my 

recollection. 

Chairman BURR. Senator Risch. 

Senator RISCH. Attorney General Sessions, good to hear you talk 

about how important this Russian interference and active measures in our campaign is. I don’t think there’s any American who 

would disagree with the fact that we need to drill down to this, 

know what happened, get it out in front of the American people, 

and do what we can to stop it. Again, and that’s what this committee was charged to do, and that’s what this committee started 

to do. 

As you probably know, on February 14th the New York Times 

published an article alleging that there was constant communications between the Trump campaign and the Russians in collusion 

regarding the elections. Do you recall that, that article when it 

came out? 

General SESSIONS. Not exactly. 

Senator RISCH. Generally? 

General SESSIONS. But I was—generally, I remember those 

charges. 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

21 

Senator RISCH. And Mr. Comey told us when he was here last 

week that he had a very specific recollection. In fact, he chased it 

down through the intelligence community and was not able to find 

a scintilla of evidence to that effect. Then, he sought out both Republicans and Democrats up here to tell them that this was false, 

that there was no such facts anywhere—that corroborated what the 

New York Times had reported. 

Nonetheless, after that this committee took that on as one of the 

things that we’ve spent really substantially more time on that than 

we have on the Russian active measures. We’ve been through thousands of pages of information, interviewed witnesses and everything else. 

We’re no—really no different than where we were when this 

whole thing started. And there’s been no reports that I know of of 

any factual information in that regard. Are you aware of any such 

information of collusion? 

General SESSIONS. Did that arise from the dossier, so-called dossier, Senator Risch? Is that what you’re referring to? 

Senator RISCH. Well, anywhere. 

General SESSIONS. I believe that’s the report that Senator 

Franken hit me with when I was testifying, and I think it has been 

pretty substantially discredited. But you would know more than I. 

But what was said that would suggest I participated in continuing 

communications with Russians as a surrogate is absolutely false. 

Senator RISCH. Mr. Sessions, there’s been all this talk about conversations and that you had some conversations with the Russians. 

For Senators up here who are on either Foreign Relations, Intelligence, or Armed Services, conversations with officers of other governments or ambassadors or what have you are everyday occurrences here, multiple-time occurrences, for most of us. Is that a fair 

statement? 

General SESSIONS. I think it is, yes. 

Senator RISCH. And, indeed, if you run into one in a grocery 

store, you’re going to have a conversation with them. Is that fair? 

General SESSIONS. Could very well happen. Nothing improper. 

Senator RISCH. All right. On the other hand, collusion with the 

Russians, or any other government, for that matter, when it comes 

to our elections certainly would be improper and illegal. Would that 

be a fair statement? 

General SESSIONS. Absolutely. 

Senator RISCH. All right. Are you willing to sit here and tell the 

American people, unfiltered by what the media’s going to put out, 

that you participated in no conversations of any kind where there 

was collusion between the Trump campaign and any other foreign 

government? 

General SESSIONS. I can say that absolutely and I have no hesitation to do so. 

Senator RISCH. Mr. Sessions, you’re a former U.S. attorney, 

former United States Senator and the Attorney General of the 

United States. You participated, as you’ve described, in the Trump 

campaign. And, as such, you traveled with the campaign, I gather? 

General SESSIONS. I did. 

Senator RISCH. You spoke for the campaign, at times? 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

22 

General SESSIONS. Well, on a number of occasions. I was not continually on the—— 

Senator RISCH. Based upon your experience and based upon your 

participation in the campaign, did you hear even a whisper or a 

suggestion or anyone making reference within that campaign that 

somehow the Russians were involved in that campaign? 

General SESSIONS. I did not. No one ever—— 

Senator RISCH. What would you have done if you’d have heard 

that? 

General SESSIONS. Well, I would’ve been shocked and I would’ve 

known it was improper. 

Senator RISCH. And headed for the exit, I suppose? 

General SESSIONS. Well, maybe. 

Senator RISCH. All right. 

General SESSIONS. So this was, you know, a serious—this is a serious matter, because what you’re talking about, hacking into a private person or the DNC computer and obtaining information and 

spreading that out, that’s just not right. And I believe it’s likely 

that laws were violated if that actually occurred. So it’s an improper thing. 

Senator RISCH. Mr. Sessions, has any person from the White 

House or the Administration, including the President of the United 

States, either directed you or asked you to do any unlawful or illegal act since you’ve been Attorney General of the United States? 

General SESSIONS. No, Senator Risch, they’ve not. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BURR. Senator Feinstein. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, Attorney General. 

General SESSIONS. Thank you. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. On May 19th, Mr. Rosenstein, in a statement 

to the House of Representatives, essentially told them that he 

learned on May 8th that President Trump intended to remove Director Comey. 

When you wrote your letter on May 9, did you know that the 

President had already decided to fire Director Comey? 

General SESSIONS. Senator Feinstein, I would say that I believe 

it’s been made public that the President asked us our opinion, it 

was given, and he asked us to put that in writing. And I don’t 

know how much more he said about it than that, but I believe he 

has talked about it. And I would let his words speak for themselves. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, on May 11th on NBC Nightly News, 

two days later, the President stated he was going to fire Comey regardless of the recommendation. So I’m puzzled about the recommendation, because the decision had been made. So what was 

the need for you to write a recommendation? 

General SESSIONS. Well, we were asked our opinion and when we 

expressed it, which was consistent with the memorandum and the 

letter we wrote, I felt comfortable, and I guess the Deputy Attorney 

General did too,—in providing that information in writing. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. So do you concur with the President that he 

was going to fire Comey regardless of recommendation, because the 

problem was the Russian investigation? 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

23 

General SESSIONS. Senator Feinstein, I guess I’ll just have to let 

his words speak for himself. I’m not sure what was in his mind explicitly when we talked with him. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Did you ever discuss Director Comey’s FBI 

handling of the Russia investigations with the President or anyone 

else? 

General SESSIONS. Senator Feinstein, that would call for a communication between the Attorney General and the President and 

I’m not able to comment on that. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. You are not able to answer the question here, 

whether you ever discussed that with him? 

General SESSIONS. That’s correct. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. And how do you view that—since you discussed his termination, why wouldn’t you discuss the reasons? 

General SESSIONS. Well, those were put in writing and sent to 

the President, and he made those public, so he made that public, 

not—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. So you’d had no verbal conversation with 

him—— 

General SESSIONS. Well—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN [continuing]. About the firing of Mr. Comey? 

General SESSIONS [continuing]. I’m not able to discuss with you 

or confirm or deny the nature of private conversations that I may 

have had with the President on this subject or others. And I know 

that—how this will be discussed, but that’s the rule that has been 

long adhered to—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. You know, others—— 

General SESSIONS [continuing]. By the Department of Justice, as 

you know, Senator Feinstein. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. You’re a long-time colleague, but we heard 

Mr. Coats and we heard Admiral Rogers say essentially the same 

thing, when it was easy just to say, if the answer was no, no. 

General SESSIONS. Well, it would’ve been easier to say, if it was 

yes, yes. But both would have been improper. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Okay. 

So how exactly were you involved in the termination of Director 

Comey? Because I am looking at your letter dated May 9 and you 

say, ‘‘The Director of the FBI must be someone who follows faithfully the rules and principles, who sets the right example for law 

enforcement officials. Therefore, I must recommend that you remove Director Comey and identify an experienced and qualified individual to lead the great men and women of the FBI.’’ 

Do you really believe that this had to do with Director Comey’s 

performance with the men and women of the FBI? 

General SESSIONS. There was a clear view of mine and of Deputy 

Attorney General Rosenstein, as he set out at some length in his 

memoranda, which I adopted and sent forward to the President, 

that we had problems there. And it was my best judgment that a 

fresh start at the FBI was the appropriate thing to do. And when 

asked, I said that to the President. It’s something I had adhered 

to. 

Deputy Rosenstein’s letter dealt with a number of things. When 

Mr. Comey declined the Clinton prosecution, that was really a 

usurpation of the authority of the Federal prosecutors in the DeLAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

24 

partment of Justice. It was a stunning development. The FBI is the 

investigative team. They don’t decide prosecution policies. And so 

that was a thunderous thing. 

He also commented at some length on the declination of the Clinton prosecution, which you should not normally—you shouldn’t do. 

Policies have been historic: If you decline, you decline, and you 

don’t talk about it. 

There were other things that had happened that indicated to me 

a lack of discipline and had caused controversy on both sides of the 

aisle, and I had come to the conclusion that a fresh start was appropriate and did not mind putting that in writing. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. My time is up. Thank you very much. 

General SESSIONS. Thank you. 

Chairman BURR. Senator Rubio. 

Senator RUBIO. Thank you. 

Thank you for being here, Attorney General. 

I want to go back to February 14th and kind of close the loop 

on the details. Director Comey was here and provided great detail 

about that day. So what I’ve heard so far is there was a meeting 

in the Oval Office on the 14th. You recall being there along with 

him. At some point, the meeting concluded. The President—everyone got up to leave—the President asked Director Comey to stay 

behind. Correct? 

General SESSIONS. Well, that’s a communication in the White 

House that I would not comment on—— 

Senator RUBIO. All right. 

General SESSIONS. I do—— 

Senator RUBIO. You remember seeing him stay behind? 

General SESSIONS. Yes. 

Senator RUBIO. Okay. And his testimony was that you lingered, 

and his view of it was you lingered because you knew that you 

needed to say. That was his characterization. Do you remember lingering? Do you remember feeling like you needed to say? 

General SESSIONS. I do recall being one of the last ones to leave, 

yes. 

Senator RUBIO. Did you decide to be one of the last ones to leave? 

General SESSIONS. I don’t know how that occurred. We had finished a—I think a terrorism—counterterrorism briefing there. A 

number of people were there and people were filtering out. And I 

eventually left, and I do recall that I think I was the last or one 

of the last two or three to leave. 

Senator RUBIO. Would it be fair to say that you felt like perhaps 

you needed to stay because it involved the FBI Director? 

General SESSIONS. Well, I don’t know how I would characterize 

that, Senator Rubio. I left. It didn’t seem to me to be a major problem. I knew that Director Comey, long-time experienced in the Department of Justice, could handle himself well. 

Senator RUBIO. So you saw him after that. He characterized it 

as he went up to you and said, you know, never leave me alone 

with the President again, it’s not appropriate. And he said—this is 

his characterization—you just kind of shrugged, like as if to say, 

‘‘what am I supposed to do about it?’’ 

General SESSIONS. Well, I think I described it more completely, 

correctly. He raised that issue with me, I believe, the next day. I 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

25 

think that was correct. And he expressed concern to me about that 

private conversation. 

And I agreed with him, essentially, that there are rules on private conversations with the President. But there’s not a prohibition 

on a private discussion with the President, as I believe he’s acknowledged six or more himself with President Obama and President Trump. So I didn’t feel like that’s a—and he gave me no detail 

about what it was that he was concerned about. 

Senator RUBIO. So what—— 

General SESSIONS. And so I didn’t say I wouldn’t be able to respond if he called me. He certainly knew that he could call his direct supervisor, which in the Department of Justice the direct supervisor to the FBI is the Deputy Attorney General. He could’ve 

complained to the deputy or to me at any time if he felt pressured, 

but I had no doubt that he would not yield to any pressure. 

Senator RUBIO. Do you know if the President records conversations in the Oval Office or anywhere in the White House? 

General SESSIONS. I do not. 

Senator RUBIO. Let me ask you this: if in fact any President were 

to record conversations in their official duties in the White House 

or the like, would there be an obligation to preserve those records? 

General SESSIONS. I don’t know, Senator Rubio. Probably so. 

Senator RUBIO. I want to go to the campaign for a moment. As 

I’m sure you’re aware and it’s been widely reported, Russian intelligence agencies often pose not simply as an official, but in covers 

as businessmen, a journalist, and the like. At any point during the 

campaign, did you have an interaction with anyone who, in hindsight, you look back and say, ‘‘they were trying to influence me or 

gain insight,’’ that in hindsight, you look at and wonder? 

General SESSIONS. I don’t believe, in my conversations with the— 

three times—— 

Senator RUBIO. Not that. Just in general. 

General SESSIONS. No—well, I met with a lot of people, a lot of 

foreign officials, who wanted to argue their case for their country 

and to point out things that they thought were important for their 

countries. 

Senator RUBIO. But it never—— 

General SESSIONS. That’s a normal thing I guess we talk about. 

Senator RUBIO. Right, but as far as someone who’s not an official 

from another country, just a businessman or anyone walking down 

the street who kind of struck you as someone that was trying to 

find out what you were up to or what with the campaign was up 

to, you never remember any sort of interaction that in hindsight 

appears suspicious? 

General SESSIONS. Well, I’d have to rack my brain, but I don’t 

recall it now. 

Senator RUBIO. My last question: you were on the foreign policy 

team. The platform, the Republican platform, was changed to not 

provide defensive weapons to Ukraine. Were you involved in that 

decision? Do you know how that change was made, or who was involved in making that change? 

General SESSIONS. I was not active in the platform committee, 

did not participate in that, and don’t think I had any direct involvement in that. 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

26 

Senator RUBIO. Do you know who did? Or do you have no recollection of a debate about that issue internally in the campaign? 

General SESSIONS. I never watched the debate, if it occurred, on 

the platform committee. I think it did. So I don’t recall that, Senator Rubio. I’d have to think about that. 

Senator RUBIO. Thank you. 

Chairman BURR. Senator Wyden. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. 

Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing in the 

open, in full view of the American people, where it belongs. I believe the American people have had it with stonewalling. Americans don’t want to hear that answers to relevant questions are 

privileged and off limits, or that they can’t be provided in public, 

or that it would be, quote, ‘‘inappropriate’’ for witnesses to tell us 

what they know. 

We are talking about an attack on our democratic institutions 

and stonewalling of any kind is unacceptable. And General Sessions has acknowledged that there is no legal basis for this 

stonewalling. 

So now to questions. Last Thursday, I asked former Director 

Comey about the FBI’s interactions with you, General Sessions, 

prior to your stepping aside from the Russian investigation. Mr. 

Comey said that your continued engagement with the Russian investigation was, quote, ‘‘problematic,’’ and he, Mr. Comey, could not 

discuss it in public. Mr. Comey also said that FBI personnel had 

been calling for you to step aside from the investigation at least 

two weeks before you finally did so. 

Now, in your prepared statement you stated you received only, 

quote, ‘‘limited information necessary to inform your recusal decision.’’ But, given Director Comey’s statement, we need to know 

what that was. 

Were you aware of any concerns at the FBI or elsewhere in government about your contacts with the Russians or any other matters relevant to whether you should step aside from the Russian investigation? 

General SESSIONS. Senator Wyden, I am not stonewalling. I am 

following the historic policies of the Department of Justice. You 

don’t walk into any hearing or committee meeting and reveal confidential communications with the President of the United States, 

who’s entitled to receive confidential communications in your best 

judgment about a host of issues, and have to be accused of 

stonewalling for not answering them. So I would push back on 

that. 

Secondly, Mr. Comey, perhaps he didn’t know, but I basically 

recused myself the day, the first day I got into the office, because 

I never accessed files, I never learned the names of investigators, 

I never met with them, I never asked for any documentation. The 

documentation, what little I received, was mostly already in the 

media and was presented by the senior ethics-professional responsibility attorney in the Department. 

Senator WYDEN. General—— 

General SESSIONS. And I made an honest and proper decision to 

recuse myself, as I told Senator Feinstein and the members of the 

committee I would do when they confirmed me. 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

27 

Senator WYDEN. General Sessions, respectfully, you’re not answering the question. 

General SESSIONS. Well, what is the question? 

Senator WYDEN. The question is, Mr. Comey said that there were 

matters with respect to the recusal that were problematic and he 

couldn’t talk about them. What are they? 

General SESSIONS. Why don’t you tell me? There are none, Senator Wyden. There are none. I can tell you that for absolute certainty. 

Senator WYDEN. We can—we can—— 

General SESSIONS. You tell—this is a secret innuendo being 

leaked out there about me, and I don’t appreciate it. And I’ve tried 

to give my best and truthful answers to any committee I’ve appeared before, and it’s really a—people are suggesting through innuendo that I have been not honest about matters, and I’ve tried 

to be honest. 

Senator WYDEN. My time is short. You’ve made your point that 

you think Mr. Comey is engaging in innuendo. We’re going to keep 

digging on this—— 

General SESSIONS. Well, Senator Wyden, he did not say that. I 

don’t—— 

Senator WYDEN. You said it was problematic, and I asked you 

what was problematic about it. 

General SESSIONS. Some of that leaked out of the committee that 

he said in closed sessions. 

Senator WYDEN. Okay. 

One more question. I asked former FBI Director whether your 

role in firing him violated your recusal, given that President 

Trump said he had fired Comey because of the Russian investigation. Director Comey said this was a reasonable question. 

So I want to ask you just point blank: Why did you sign the letter recommending the firing of Director Comey when it violated 

your recusal? 

General SESSIONS. It did not violate my recusal. It did not violate 

my recusal. That would be the answer to that. And the letter that 

I signed represented my views that had been formulated for some 

time. 

Senator WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, just if I can finish. 

That answer in my view doesn’t pass the smell test. The President tweeted repeatedly about his anger at investigations into his 

associates and Russia. The day before you wrote your letter, he 

tweeted that the collusion story was a total hoax and asked ‘‘When 

will this taxpayer-funded charade end?’’ I don’t think your answer 

passes the smell test. 

General SESSIONS. Well, Senator Wyden, I think I should be allowed to briefly respond at least and would say the letter, the 

memorandum that Deputy Rosenstein wrote and my letter that accompanied it represented my views of the situation. 

Senator WYDEN. I’ll ask that on the second round. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BURR. Senator Collins. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Attorney General Sessions, I want to clarify who did what with 

regard to the firing of Mr. Comey. First of all, let me ask you, when 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

28 

did you have your first conversation with Rod Rosenstein about Mr. 

Comey? 

General SESSIONS. We talked about it before either one of us 

were confirmed. It was a topic of, you know, conversation among 

people who’d served in the Department a long time. They knew 

that what had happened that fall was pretty dramatically unusual. 

Many people felt it was very wrong. And so it was in that context 

that we discussed it and we both found that we shared a common 

view that a fresh start would be appropriate. 

Senator COLLINS. And this was based on Mr. Comey’s handling 

of the investigation involving Hillary Clinton in which you said 

that he usurped the authority of prosecutors at the Department of 

Justice? 

General SESSIONS. Yes, that was part of it; and the commenting 

on the investigation in ways that go beyond the proper policies. We 

needed to restore, Senator Collins, I think the classic discipline in 

the Department. My team, we’ve discussed this. There’s been too 

much leaking and too much talking publicly about investigations. 

In the long run, the Department’s historic rule that you remain 

mum about ongoing investigations is the better policy. 

Senator COLLINS. Now, subsequently the President asked for you 

to put your views in writing, you’ve testified today. And I believe 

that you were right to recuse yourself from the ongoing Russian investigation. 

But then on May 9th you wrote to the President recommending 

that Mr. Comey be dismissed, and obviously this went back many 

months to the earlier conversations you had with Mr. Rosenstein. 

But my question is, why do you believe that your recommendation 

to fire Director Comey was not inconsistent with your March 2nd 

recusal? 

General SESSIONS. Thank you. The recusal involved one case involved in the Department of Justice and in the FBI. They conduct 

thousands of investigations. I’m the Attorney General of the United 

States. It’s my responsibility to our Judiciary Committee and other 

committees to ensure that Department is run properly. I have to 

make difficult decisions, and I do not believe that it is a sound position to say that if you’re recused for a single case involving any one 

of the great agencies, like DEA or U.S. Marshals or ATF that are 

part of the Department of Justice, you can’t make a decision about 

the leadership in that agency. 

Senator COLLINS. Now, if you had known that the President subsequently was going to go on TV and in an interview with Lester 

Holt of NBC, would say that this Russian thing was the reason for 

his decision to dismiss the FBI Director, would you have felt uncomfortable about the timing of the decision? 

General SESSIONS. Well, I would just say this, Senator Collins. 

I don’t think it’s appropriate to deal with those kind of 

hypotheticals. I have to deal in actual issues. And I would respectfully not comment on that. 

Senator COLLINS. Well, let me ask you this: In retrospect, do you 

believe that it would have been better for you to have stayed out 

of the decision to fire Director Comey? 

General SESSIONS. I think it’s my responsibility. I mean, I was 

appointed to be Attorney General. Supervising all the Federal 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

29 

agencies is my responsibility. Trying to get the very best people in 

those agencies at the top of them is my responsibility, and I think 

I had a duty to do so. 

Senator COLLINS. Now, Director Comey testified that he was not 

comfortable telling you about his one-on-one conversation with the 

President on February 14th because he believed that you would 

shortly recuse yourself from the Russian investigation, which you 

did. Yet Director Comey testified that he told no one else at the Department outside of the senior leadership team at the FBI. 

Do you believe that the Director had an obligation to bring the 

information about the President saying that he hoped he could let 

Michael Flynn go to someone else at the Department of Justice? 

There are an awful lot of lawyers at the Department of Justice, 

some 10,000 by last count. 

General SESSIONS. I think the appropriate thing would’ve been 

for Director Comey to talk with the Acting Deputy Attorney General, who is his direct supervisor. That was Dana Boente, who had 

33 years in the Department of Justice, and was even then still 

serving for six years, and continues to serve, as U.S. attorney appointed by President Obama. So he’s a man of great integrity and 

everybody knows it, a man of decency and judgment. If he had concerns, I think he should’ve raised it to Deputy Attorney General 

Boente, who would be the appropriate person in any case, really. 

But if he had any concern that I might be recusing myself, that 

would be a double reason for him to share it with Deputy Attorney 

General Boente. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. 

Chairman BURR. Senator Heinrich. 

Senator HEINRICH. Attorney General Sessions, has the President 

ever expressed his frustration to you regarding your decision to 

recuse yourself? 

General SESSIONS. Senator Heinrich, I’m not able to share with 

this committee private communications—— 

Senator HEINRICH. Because you’re invoking executive privilege? 

General SESSIONS. I’m not able to invoke executive privilege. 

That’s the President’s prerogative. 

Senator HEINRICH. Well, my understanding is that you took an 

oath, you raised your right hand here today, and you said that you 

would solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And now you’re not answering questions. You’re 

impeding this investigation. So my understanding of the legal 

standard is that you either answer the question—that’s the best 

outcome—you say, this is classified, can’t answer it here, I’ll answer it in closed session. That’s bucket number two. 

Bucket number three is to say, I’m invoking executive privilege. 

There is no appropriateness bucket. It is not a legal standard. 

Can you tell me what are these longstanding DOJ rules that protect conversations made in the executive without invoking executive privilege? 

General SESSIONS. Senator, I’m protecting the President’s constitutional right by not giving it away before he has a chance to 

view it—— 

Senator HEINRICH. You’re having it both ways. 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

30 

General SESSIONS [continuing]. And secondly, I am telling the 

truth and answering your question in saying it’s a longstanding 

policy of the Department of Justice—— 

Senator HEINRICH. Are those policies written? 

General SESSIONS [continuing]. To make sure the President has 

full opportunity to decide these issues. 

Senator HEINRICH. Can you share those policies with us? Are 

they written down at the Department of Justice? 

General SESSIONS. I believe they are. Certainly—— 

Senator HEINRICH. This is the appropriateness legal standard for 

not answering Congressional inquiries? 

General SESSIONS. It’s my judgment that it would be inappropriate for me to answer and reveal private conversations with the 

President when he has not had a full opportunity to review the 

questions and to make a decision on whether or not to approve 

such an answer, one. 

There are also other privileges that could be invoked. One of the 

things deals with can the investigation of the special counsel 

as—— 

Senator HEINRICH. We’re not asking questions about that investigation. If I wanted to ask questions about that investigation, I’d 

ask those of Rod Rosenstein. I’m asking about your personal knowledge from this committee, which has a constitutional obligation to 

get to the bottom of this. 

There are two investigations here. There is a special counsel investigation. There is also a Congressional investigation, and you 

are obstructing that Congressional investigation by not answering 

these questions. And I think your silence, like the silence of Director Coats, like the silence of Admiral Rogers, speaks volumes. 

General SESSIONS. I would say that I have consulted with senior 

career attorneys in the Department—— 

Senator HEINRICH. I suspect you have. 

General SESSIONS [continuing]. And they believe this is consistent with my duties. 

Senator HEINRICH. Senator Risch asked you a question about appropriateness, if you had known that there had been anything untoward with regard to Russia and the campaign would you have 

headed for the exits. Your response was: Maybe. Why wasn’t it a 

simple yes? 

General SESSIONS. Well, if there was an improper, illegal relationship in an effort to impede or influence this campaign, I absolutely would have departed. 

Senator HEINRICH. I think that’s a good answer. I’m not sure 

why it wasn’t the answer in the first place. 

General SESSIONS. I thought I did answer it. 

Senator HEINRICH. I find it strange that neither you nor Deputy 

Attorney General Rod Rosenstein brought up performance issues 

with Director Comey. And in fact, Deputy FBI Director McCabe 

has directly refuted any assertion that there were performance 

issues. This is troubling because it appears that the President decided to fire Director Comey because he was pursuing the Russia 

investigation and had asked you to come up with an excuse. 

When your assessment of Director Comey didn’t hold up to public 

scrutiny, the President finally admitted that he had fired Director 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

31 

Comey because he was pursuing the Russia investigation, i.e., the 

Lester Holt interview. 

You’ve claimed that you did not break recusal when participating 

in Director Comey’s firing, but it appears that his firing was directly related to Russia, not departmental mismanagement. How 

do you square those two things? 

General SESSIONS. Well, you had a lot in that question. Let me 

say first, within a week or so, I believe May 3rd, Director Comey 

testified that he believed the handling of the Clinton declination 

was proper and appropriate and he would do it again. 

I know that was a great concern to both of us, because that represented something that I think most professionals in the Department of Justice would totally agree that the FBI investigative 

agency does not decide whether to prosecute or decline criminal 

cases; a pretty breathtaking usurpation of the responsibility of the 

Attorney General. 

So that’s how we felt. That was sort of an additional concern, 

that we had heading the FBI, someone who boldly asserted the 

right to continue to make such decisions. 

That was one of the things we discussed. That was in the memorandum, I believe, and it was also an important factor for us. 

Chairman BURR. Before I recognize Senator Blunt, I would like 

the record to show that last night Admiral Rogers spent almost two 

hours in closed session with almost the full committee, fulfilling his 

commitment to us in the hearing that in closed session he would 

answer the question. And I think it was thoroughly answered, and 

all members were given an opportunity to ask questions. I just 

want the record to show that with what Senator Heinrich stated. 

Senator Blunt. 

Senator BLUNT. Thank you Chairman. 

Attorney General, it’s good to see you here. It’s good to see Mary. 

I know that there’s probably other places you’d both rather be 

today, but you’ve always looked at public service as something you 

did together, and it’s good to see you here together and know that 

your family continues to be proud and supportive of what you do. 

General SESSIONS. Thank you. I’ve been blessed indeed. 

Senator BLUNT. I agree with that. I agree with that. 

Let me just get a couple of things clear in my mind here of notes 

I have taken while people were asking questions and you were 

talking. On the April 27th, 2016, event—I think that’s the 

Mayflower Hotel speech that President—that the presidential candidate gave on foreign policy, you didn’t have a room at that event 

where you had private meetings, did you? 

General SESSIONS. No, I did not. 

Senator BLUNT. And as I understand it, you went to a reception 

that was attended by how many people? 

General SESSIONS. I think two to three dozen. 

Senator BLUNT. Two to three dozen people. You went in, heard 

his speech, and then may have seen people on your way out? 

General SESSIONS. Correct. 

Senator BLUNT. So when you said you possibly had a meeting 

with Mr. Kislyak, did you mean you possibly met him? 

General SESSIONS. I didn’t have any formal meeting—— 

Senator BLUNT. As opposed—I would assume the meeting—— 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

32 

General SESSIONS [continuing]. With him, I’m confident of that. 

But I may have had an encounter during the reception. That’s the 

only thing; I cannot say with certainty I did not. That’s all I can 

say. 

Senator BLUNT. Well, that’s what I thought you were saying but 

sometimes when I hear ‘‘I had a meeting’’ that would mean more 

to me than ‘‘I met somebody.’’ 

[Laughter.] 

General SESSIONS. Right, right. 

Senator BLUNT. You might have met him at the reception. Could 

you have met other ambassadors at that reception as well? 

General SESSIONS. I could. I remember one in particular that we 

had a conversation with, whose country had an investment in Alabama, and we talked at a little length about that. I remember that. 

But otherwise, I have no recollection of a discussion with the Russian ambassador. 

Senator BLUNT. All right. So you were there. You’ve read since 

he was there. You may have seen him. But you had no room where 

you were having meetings with individuals to have discussions at 

the Mayflower Hotel that day? 

General SESSIONS. No, that is correct. 

Senator BLUNT. Well, whenever you talked to Mr. Comey after 

he had his meeting with the President, do you think that was probably the next day? You didn’t stay afterwards and see him after he 

left the Oval Office that night? 

General SESSIONS. No. I understand his testimony may have suggested that it happened right afterwards. But it was either the 

next morning, which I think it was, or maybe the morning after 

that. It was, we had a three times a week national security briefing 

with the FBI that I undertake. And so it was after that that we 

had that conversation. 

Senator BLUNT. When you had that conversation. Now, what I’m 

not quite clear on is, did you respond when he expressed his concern or not? 

General SESSIONS. Yes, I did respond. I think he’s incorrect. He 

indicated, I believe, that he was not totally sure of the exact wording of the meeting, but I do recall my chief of staff was with me. 

And we recall that I did affirm the longstanding written policies of 

the Department of Justice concerning communications with the 

White House. We have to follow those rules. And in the long run, 

you’re much better off if you do. 

They do not prohibit communications one on one by the FBI director with the President, but if that conversation moves into certain areas, the rules apply to the Department of Justice, so it’s the 

duty of the FBI agent to say, Mr. President, I can’t talk about that. 

That’s the way that should work. And apparently it did, because 

he says he did not improperly discuss matters with the President. 

Senator BLUNT. When Mr. Comey talked to you about that meeting, did he mention Mr. Flynn? 

General SESSIONS. No, he mentioned no facts of any kind. He did 

not mention to me that he’d been asked to do something he thought 

was improper. He just said he was uncomfortable, I believe, with 

it. 

Senator BLUNT. After that discussion with Mr. Comey—— 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

33 

General SESSIONS. Actually, I don’t know that he said he was uncomfortable. I think he said maybe—maybe it was what—what he 

testified to was perhaps the correct wording. I’m not sure exactly 

what he said, but I don’t dispute it. 

Senator BLUNT. Well, exactly what I think he’s—what I remember him saying was that you didn’t react at all and kind of 

shrugged, but you’re saying you referred him to the normal way 

these meetings are supposed to be conducted. 

General SESSIONS. I took it as a concern that he might be asked 

something that was improper, and I affirmed to him his willingness 

to say no or not go in an improper way, improper direction. 

Senator BLUNT. I’ll just say finally, I’m assuming you wouldn’t 

talk about this because it would relate to the May 8th meeting, but 

my sense is that no decision is final until it’s carried out. My guess 

is that there are people at this dais who have said they were going 

to let somebody go or fire somebody that never did that. 

So the fact that the President said that on May 8th doesn’t mean 

that the information he got from you on May 9th was not necessary 

or impactful. And I’m sure you’re not going to say how many times 

the President said, we ought to get rid of that person, but I’m sure 

that’s happened. 

Chairman BURR. Senator King. 

Senator KING. Mr. Attorney General, thank you for joining us 

today. I respect—— 

General SESSIONS. Thank you. 

Senator KING [continuing]. Your willingness to be here. 

General SESSIONS. Thank you. 

Senator KING. You testified a few minutes ago, I’m not able to 

invoke executive privilege; that’s up to the President. Has the 

President invoked executive privilege in the case of your testimony 

here today? 

General SESSIONS. He has not. 

Senator KING. Then what is the basis of your refusal to answer 

these questions? 

General SESSIONS. Senator King, the President has a constitutional—— 

Senator KING. I understand that. But the President hasn’t asserted it. 

General SESSIONS. Well, I—— 

Senator KING. You said you don’t have the power to assert the 

power of executive privilege, so what is the legal basis for your refusal to answer these questions? 

General SESSIONS. I am protecting the right of the President to 

assert it if he chooses, and there may be other privileges that could 

apply in this circumstance. 

Senator KING. Well, I don’t understand how you can have it both 

ways. The President can’t not assert it—and you’ve testified that 

only the President can assert it, and yet,—I just don’t understand 

the legal basis for your refusal to answer. 

General SESSIONS. Well, what we try to do, I think most Cabinet 

officials, others that you questioned recently, officials before the 

committee, protect the President’s right to do so. If it comes to a 

point where the issue is clear and there is a dispute about it, at 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

34 

some point the President will either assert the privilege or not, or 

some other privilege can be—would be asserted. 

But at this point, I believe it’s premature for me to deny—— 

Senator KING. You’re asserting a privilege that the President 

you’ve testified—— 

General SESSIONS. It would be premature for me to deny the 

President a full and intelligent choice about executive privilege. 

That’s not necessary at this point. 

Senator KING. You testified a few minutes ago that, quote ‘‘We 

were asked for our opinion.’’ Who asked for your opinion? 

General SESSIONS. You mean—— 

Senator KING. You just testified, ‘‘We were asked for our opinion,’’ you and Rod Rosenstein. 

General SESSIONS. My understanding is—I believe I’m correct in 

saying the President has said so, that—— 

Senator KING. So he didn’t ask you directly? 

General SESSIONS. I thought you were asking about the privilege. 

Senator KING. No, no, I’m sorry. 

General SESSIONS. Do you want to go back to the—— 

Senator KING. I’m saying, you said, quote ‘‘We were asked for our 

opinion,’’ you and Mr. Rosenstein. 

General SESSIONS. I believe that was appropriate for me to say 

that because I think the President had said—— 

Senator KING. No, I’m just asking you—— 

General SESSIONS. I’m just saying why—— 

Senator KING. [continuing]. Who asked for your opinion? Who 

asked you for your opinion? 

General SESSIONS. Yes, right. The President asked for our opinion. 

Senator KING. All right. So you just testified as to the content 

of a communication from the President. 

General SESSIONS. That is correct, but I believe he’s already revealed that. I believe I’m correct in saying that. That’s why I indicated that when I answered that question. 

But if he hasn’t and I’m in error, I would—— 

Senator KING. So you can—— 

General SESSIONS [continuing]. Have constricted his constitutional right of privilege. You’re correct. 

Senator KING. So you’re being selective about the use—— 

General SESSIONS. No, I’m not intentionally. I’m doing so only because I believe he made that—he has been public about that. 

Senator KING. In any of your discussions with the President 

about the firing of James Comey, did the question of the Russian 

investigation ever come up? 

General SESSIONS. I cannot answer that because it was a communication by the President or, if any such occurred, it would be a 

communication that he has not waived. 

Senator KING. But he has not asserted executive privilege? 

General SESSIONS. He has not asserted executive privilege to 

date. 

Senator KING. Do you believe the Russians interfered with the 

2016 elections? 

General SESSIONS. It appears so. The intelligence community 

seems to be united in that. But I have to tell you, Senator King, 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

35 

I know nothing but what I’ve read in the paper. I’ve never received 

any detailed briefing on how a hacking occurred or how information was alleged to have influenced the campaign. 

Senator KING. Well, between the election, there was a memorandum from the intelligence community on October 9th that detailed what the Russians were doing. After the election, before the 

inauguration, you never sought any information about this rather 

dramatic attack on our country? 

General SESSIONS. No. I—— 

Senator KING. You never asked for a briefing or attended a briefing or read the intelligence reports? 

General SESSIONS. You might have been very critical of me if I, 

as an active part of the campaign, was seeking intelligence relating 

to something that might be relevant to the campaign. I’m not sure 

that would have been—— 

Senator KING. I’m not talking about the campaign; I’m talking 

about what the Russians did. You received no briefing on the Russian active measures in connection with the 2016 election? 

General SESSIONS. No, I don’t believe I ever did. 

Senator KING. Let’s go to your letter of May 9th. You said, 

‘‘Based upon my evaluation and for the reasons expressed by deputy.’’ Was that a written evaluation? 

General SESSIONS. My evaluation was an evaluation that had 

been going on for some months. 

Senator KING. Was there a written evaluation? 

General SESSIONS. I did not make one. I think you could classify 

Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein’s memorandum as an evaluation, and he was the direct supervisor of the FBI Director. 

Senator KING. And his evaluation was based 100 percent on the 

handling of the Hillary Clinton e-mails, is that correct? 

General SESSIONS. Well, and a number of other matters, as I recall, but he did explicitly lay out the errors that he thought had 

been made in that process by the Director of the FBI. I thought 

they were cogent and accurate and far more significant than I 

think a lot of people have understood. 

Senator KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BURR. Senator Lankford. 

Senator LANKFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Attorney General Sessions, it’s good to see you again. 

General SESSIONS. Thank you, Senator Lankford. 

Senator LANKFORD. You speak as a man eager to set the record 

straight. You’ve spoken very bluntly from the very beginning from 

your opening statement all the way through this time. 

I am amazed at the conversations, as if an Attorney General has 

never said there were private conversations with the President and 

we don’t need to discuss those. It seems to be a short memory 

about some the statements Eric Holder would and would not make 

to any committee in the House or the Senate, and would or would 

not turn over documents, even requested. That had to go all the 

way through the court system to finally the courts having to say, 

no, the President can’t hold back documents and the Attorney General can’t do that. 

So somehow some accusation that you’re not saying every conversation about everything. There’s a long history of Attorney GenLAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

36 

erals standing beside the President saying there are some conversations that are confidential and then it can we determined 

from there. 

It does seem as well that every unnamed source story somehow 

gets a hearing. I was in the hearing this morning with Rod Rosenstein as we dealt with the appropriations requests that originally, 

obviously, you were scheduled to be at, that Rod Rosenstein was 

taking your place to be able to cover. He was very clear—he was 

peppered with questions about Russia during that conversation as 

well. He was very clear that he has never had conversations with 

you about that, and that you have never requested conversations 

about that. 

He was also peppered with questions of the latest rumor of the 

day, that is, somehow the President is thinking about firing Robert 

Mueller and getting rid of him, and was very clear that Rosenstein 

himself said, I am the only one that could do that and I’m not contemplating that, nor would I do that. And no one has any idea 

where the latest unnamed-source story of the day is coming from, 

but somehow it’s grabbing all the attention. 

I do want to be able to bring up a couple things to you specifically. One is to define the word ‘‘recuse.’’ And I come back to your 

e-mail that you sent to Jim Comey and others that day on March 

the 2nd. This was what you had said during—in your e-mail: 

‘‘After careful consideration, following meetings with career Department officials over the course of this past several weeks, the 

Attorney General has decided to recuse himself from any existing 

or future investigations of any matters related in any way to the 

campaigns for President of the United States. The Attorney General’s recusal is not only with respect to such investigations, if any, 

but also extends to the Department responses to Congressional and 

media inquiries related to such investigations.’’ 

Is that something you have maintained from March 2nd on? 

General SESSIONS. Absolutely. Actually, I maintained it from the 

first day I became Attorney General. We discussed those matters 

and I felt until and if I ever made a decision to not recuse myself, 

I should not, as an abundance of caution, involve myself in studying the investigation or evaluating it. 

Senator LANKFORD. Right. 

General SESSIONS. So I did not. 

I also would note that the memorandum from my chief of staff 

directs these agencies—and one of the people directly it was sent 

to was James B. Comey, the Director of the FBI—‘‘You should instruct members of your staffs not to brief the Attorney General or 

any other officials in the Office of the Attorney General about or 

otherwise involve the Attorney General or other officials in the Office of the Attorney General in any such matters described above.’’ 

Senator LANKFORD. And you haven’t requested—— 

General SESSIONS. So we took the proper and firm and crystalclear position that the recusal meant recusal. 

Senator LANKFORD. Relating to this April 27th meeting, nonmeeting, in the same room at the same time, the National Interest 

was asked specifically about this as well, who was the host of that 

event. They stated this in writing: 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

37 

‘‘As the host, the Center for National Interest decided whom to 

invite and then issued the invitations. The Trump campaign did 

not determine or approve the invitation list. Guests at the event included both Democrats and Republicans, with some among the latter supporting other candidates. Most of the guests were Washington-based foreign policy experts and journalists. 

‘‘The Center for National Interest invited Russian Ambassador 

Kislyak and several other ambassadors to the speech. We regularly 

invite ambassadors and other foreign representatives to our events 

to facilitate dialogue.’’ 

And then they stated: ‘‘We seated all four in the front row during 

the speech in deference to their diplomatic status. The Trump campaign had nothing to do with the seating arrangement. The Center 

for National Interest extended equal treatment to the foreign ambassadors attending the event and invited each to a short reception 

prior to the Trump speech. 

‘‘The reception included approximately two dozen guests in a receiving line. The line moved quickly and any conversations with 

Mr. Trump in that setting were inherently brief and could not be 

private. Our recollection is that the interaction between Mr. Trump 

and the Ambassador Kislyak was limited to polite exchange of 

pleasantries, appropriate on such occasions. 

‘‘We’re not aware of any conversation between Ambassador 

Kislyak and Senator Jeff Sessions at the reception. However, in a 

small group setting like this one, we consider it unlikely that anyone could have engaged in a meaningful private conversation without drawing attention from others present.’’ 

Do you have any reason to disagree with that? 

General SESSIONS. No, I think that’s a very fair description of the 

reception situation. I appreciate them having made that statement. 

Senator LANKFORD. Great. I yield back. 

Chairman BURR. Senator Manchin. 

Senator MANCHIN. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. General, for being here. It’s good to see you 

again. 

General SESSIONS. Thank you, Senator Manchin. 

Senator MANCHIN. Sir, I want to follow up a little bit on what 

Senator King had asked concerning—you and I are about the same 

vintage, and we remember back in our lifetime we’ve never known 

the Russians to be, the Russian government or the Russian military to ever be our friend and wanting the same things we wanted 

out of life. 

With that being said, the seriousness of this Russian hacking is 

very serious to me and concerning. And you were saying that you 

had not been briefed on that. 

October, I think it was October 9th when it was known, that the 

ODNI at that time, I think Mr. Clapper, and also Mr. Jeh Johnson, 

Homeland Security, made that public what was going on. Then on 

December 29th, President Obama at that time expelled 35 Russian 

diplomats, denied access to two Russian-owned compounds, and he 

broadened the existing sanctions. 

Sir, I would ask, did you have any discussions at all, have you 

had any discussions or sat in on any type of meetings, where recommendations were made to remove those sanctions? 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

38 

General SESSIONS. I don’t recall any such meeting. 

Senator MANCHIN. And during the time, not from the President 

being inaugurated on January 20th, prior to that, in the campaign 

up until through the transition, was there ever any meetings that 

he showed any concern or consideration or just inquisitive of what 

the Russians were really doing and if they’d really done it? 

General SESSIONS. I don’t recall any such conversation. I’m not 

sure I understood your question. Maybe I better listen again. 

Senator MANCHIN. Well, you were part of the national security 

team. 

General SESSIONS. Yes. 

Senator MANCHIN. So if he would have heard something about 

Russia and with their capabilities and our concern about what they 

could do to our election process, was there ever any conversations 

concerning that whatsoever? 

General SESSIONS. I don’t recall it, Senator Manchin. 

Senator MANCHIN. I know it’s been asked of you, the things that, 

you know, your executive privileges and protecting the President. 

I understand that. But also, when we had Mr. Comey here, you 

know, he couldn’t answer a lot of things in open session. He agreed 

to go into a closed session. Would you be able to go into a closed 

session? Would it change your answers to us or your ability to 

speak more frankly on some things we would want to know? 

General SESSIONS. Senator Manchin, I’m not sure. The executive 

privilege is not waived by going in camera or in closed session. It 

may be that one of the concerns is that when you have an investigation ongoing, as the special counsel does, it’s often very problematic to have persons, you know, not cooperating with that counsel in the conduct of the investigation, which may or may not be 

a factor in going into closed session. 

Senator MANCHIN. It would be very helpful, I think. The committee, there’s a lot questions they’d like to ask, and I know that 

you would like to answer if possible. And maybe we can check into 

that a little further. 

If I could, sir, did you have any meetings, any other meetings 

with Russian government officials that have not been previously 

disclosed? 

General SESSIONS. I have racked my brain and I do not believe 

so. 

Senator MANCHIN. Are there any other—— 

General SESSIONS. I can assure you that none of those meetings 

discussed manipulating a campaign in the United States in any 

way, shape, or form, or any hacking or any such ideas like that. 

Senator MANCHIN. I’m going to go quick through this. Are there 

any other meetings between Russian government officials and any 

other Trump campaign associates that have not been previously 

disclosed that you know of? 

General SESSIONS. I don’t recall any. 

Senator MANCHIN. To the best of your knowledge, did any of the 

following individuals meet with Russian officials at any point during the campaign? You can just go yes or no as I go down through 

the list. 

Paul Manafort? 

General SESSIONS. Repeat that now? Would you start over? 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

39 

Senator MANCHIN. To the best of your knowledge, sir, did any of 

these following individuals meet with Russian officials at any point 

during the campaign? And you can just yes or no of this. 

Paul Manafort? 

General SESSIONS. I don’t have any information that he had done 

so. He served as campaign chairman for a few months. 

Senator MANCHIN. Steve Bannon? 

General SESSIONS. I have no information that he did. 

Senator MANCHIN. General Michael Flynn? 

General SESSIONS. I don’t recall it. 

Senator MANCHIN. Reince Priebus? 

General SESSIONS. I don’t recall. 

Senator MANCHIN. Steve Miller? 

General SESSIONS. I don’t recall him ever having such a conversation. 

Senator MANCHIN. Corey Lewandowski? 

General SESSIONS. I do not recall any of those individuals having 

any meeting with Russian officials. 

Senator MANCHIN. Carter Page? 

General SESSIONS. I don’t know. 

Senator MANCHIN. And I would finally ask this question, because 

I always think—we try to get—you have innate knowledge—— 

General SESSIONS. There may have been some published accounts of Mr. Page talking with the Russians. I’m not sure. I don’t 

recall. 

Senator MANCHIN. Okay. 

As a former Senator, you bring a unique, holistic perspective to 

this investigation, because you’ve been on both sides. 

General SESSIONS. I have indeed. 

Senator MANCHIN. If you were—— 

General SESSIONS. All in all, it’s better on that side. 

Senator MANCHIN. If you were sitting on this side of the dais— 

okay—— 

General SESSIONS. Nobody gets to ask you about your private 

conversations with your staff. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MANCHIN. Well, here we go, you get your chance to give 

us some advice. If you were sitting on this side of the dais, what 

question would you be asking? 

General SESSIONS. I would be asking questions related to whether or not there was an impact on this election—— 

Senator MANCHIN. And what part of the story do you think we’re 

missing? 

General SESSIONS [continuing]. By a foreign power, particularly 

the Russians, since the intelligence community has suggested and 

stated that they believe they did, but I do think members of this 

government have offices to run—— 

Senator MANCHIN. Is there part of the story we’re missing? 

General SESSIONS [continuing]. And departments to manage. And 

the questions should be focused on that. 

Senator MANCHIN. Is there a part of the story we’re missing? I’m 

so sorry, Mr. Chairman. Is there part of the story we’re missing? 

General SESSIONS. I don’t know because I’m not involved in the 

investigation and had no information concerning it. I have no idea 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

40 

at what stage it is. You members of this committee know a lot 

more than I. 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you, General Sessions. 

Chairman BURR. General Sessions, I will assure you we are very 

much focused on Russia’s involvement and our hope is that as we 

complete this process we will lay those facts out for the American 

people so they can make their own determinations as well. We’re 

grateful for what you’ve done. 

Senator Cotton. 

Senator COTTON. Well, I am on this side of the dais, so I can say 

a very simple question that should be asked. I am on this side of 

the dais, so a very simple question that should be asked is: Did 

Donald Trump or any of his associates in the campaign collude 

with Russia in hacking those e-mails and releasing them to the 

public? That’s where we started six months ago. 

We have now heard from six of the eight Democrats on this committee and to my knowledge I don’t think a single one of them 

asked that question. They’ve gone down lots of other rabbit trails, 

but not that question. Maybe that is because Jim Comey said last 

week, as he said to Donald Trump, told him three times, he assured him he was not under investigation. Maybe it’s because multiple Democrats on this committee have stated that they have seen 

no evidence thus far, after 6 months of our investigation and 10 

months—or 11 months of an FBI investigation, of any such collusion. 

I would just suggest: What do we think happened at the 

Mayflower? Mr. Sessions, are you familiar with what spies called 

tradecraft? 

General SESSIONS. A little bit. 

Senator COTTON. That involves things like covert communications and dead drops and brush passes, right? 

General SESSIONS. That is part of it. 

Senator COTTON. Do you like spy fiction, John le Carre, Daniel 

Silva, Jason Matthews? 

General SESSIONS. Yeah, Alan Furst, David Ignatius. Just finished Ignatius’ book. 

Senator COTTON. Do you like Jason Bourne or James Bond movies? 

General SESSIONS. No—yes—— 

[Laughter.] 

General SESSIONS [continuing]. I do. 

Senator COTTON. Have you ever in any of these fantastical situations heard of a plot line so ridiculous that a sitting United States 

Senator and an ambassador of a foreign government colluded at an 

open setting with hundreds of other people to pull off the greatest 

caper in the history of espionage? 

General SESSIONS. Thank you for saying that, Senator Cotton. 

It’s just like ‘‘Through the Looking Glass.’’ I mean, what is this? 

I explained how in good faith I said I had not met with Russians 

because they were suggesting I, as a surrogate, had been meeting 

continuously with Russians. I said I didn’t meet with them. 

And now the next thing you know, I’m accused of some reception, 

plotting some sort of influence campaign for the American election. 

It’s just beyond my capability to understand, and I really appreLAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

41 

ciate, Mr. Chairman, the opportunity at least to be able to say publicly I didn’t participate in that and know nothing about it. 

Senator COTTON. And I gather that’s one reason why you want 

to testify today in public. 

Last week, Mr. Comey, in characteristic dramatic and theatrical 

fashion, alluded ominously to what you call innuendo, that there 

was some kind of classified intelligence that suggested you might 

have colluded with Russia, or that you might have otherwise acted 

improperly. You’ve addressed those allegations here today. Do you 

understand why he made that allusion? 

General SESSIONS. Actually, I do not. Nobody has provided me 

any information about that. 

Senator COTTON. Thank you. My time is limited. I have a lot of 

questions. 

Mr. Blunt asked you if you had spoken in response to Mr. 

Comey’s statement to you after his private meeting with the President on February 14th or February 15th. You said that you did respond to Mr. Comey. Mr. Comey’s testimony said that you did not. 

Do you know why Mr. Comey would’ve said that you did not respond him on that conversation with you February 14th or 15th? 

General SESSIONS. I do not. There was a little conversation, not 

very long, but there was a conversation and I did respond to him, 

perhaps not to everything he asked. But I did respond to him, I 

think in an appropriate way. 

Senator COTTON. Do you know why Mr. Comey mistrusted President Trump from their first meeting on January 6th? He stated 

last week that he did, but he didn’t state anything from that meeting that caused him to have such mistrust. 

General SESSIONS. I’m not able to speculate on that. 

Senator COTTON. Let’s turn to the potential crimes that we know 

have happened, leaks of certain information. Here’s a short list of 

what I have: the contents of alleged transcripts of alleged conversations between Mr. Flynn and Mr. Kislyak; the contents of President 

Trump’s phone calls with Australian and Mexican leaders; the content of Mr. Trump’s meetings with the Russian foreign minister 

and ambassador; the leak of Manchester bombing—the Manchester 

bombing suspect’s identity and crime scene photos; and last week, 

within 20 minutes of this committee meeting in a classified setting 

with Jim Comey, the leak of what the basis of Mr. Comey’s innuendo was. 

Are these leaks serious threats to our national security? And is 

the Department of Justice taking them with the appropriate degree 

of seriousness in investigating and ultimately going to prosecute 

them to the fullest extent of the law? 

General SESSIONS. Thank you, Senator Cotton. We have had one 

successful case very recently in Georgia. That person has been denied bail, I believe, and is being held in custody. 

But some of these leaks, as you well know, are extraordinarily 

damaging to the United States’ security, and we have got to restore 

a regular order principle. We cannot have persons in our intelligence agencies, our investigative agencies, or in Congress leaking 

sensitive matters, or staff. So this I’m afraid will result in, is already resulting in investigations, and I fear that some people may 

find that they wish they hadn’t have leaked. 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

42 

Senator COTTON. Thank you. My time has expired. 

But for the record, it was stated earlier that the Republican platform was weakened on the point of arms to Ukraine. That is incorrect. The platform was actually strengthened. And I would note 

that it was the Democratic President who refused repeated bipartisan requests of this Congress to supply those arms to Ukraine. 

Chairman BURR. Senator Harris. 

Senator HARRIS. Attorney General Sessions, you have several 

times this afternoon prefaced your responses by saying ‘‘to the best 

of your recollection.’’ Just on the first page of your three pages of 

written testimony, you wrote ‘‘nor do I recall,’’ ‘‘do not have recollection,’’ ‘‘do not remember it.’’ 

So my question is, for any of your testimony today, did you refresh your memory with any written documents, be they your calendar, written correspondence, e-mails, notes of any sort? 

General SESSIONS. I attempted to refresh my recollection, but so 

much of this is in a wholesale campaign of extraordinary nature 

that you’re moving so fast that you don’t keep notes. You meet people—I didn’t keep notes of my conversation with the Russian ambassador at the Republican convention, but you—— 

Senator HARRIS. Sir, I’d like to just talk about what you did keep 

notes of. 

General SESSIONS. You know, I was just saying, I didn’t keep 

notes on most of these things. And there’s nothing for me—— 

Senator HARRIS. Will you provide this committee with the notes 

that you did maintain? 

General SESSIONS. As appropriate, I will supply the committee 

with documents. 

Senator HARRIS. Can you please tell me what you mean when 

you say ‘‘appropriate?’’ 

General SESSIONS. I would have to consult with the lawyers in 

the Department who know the proper procedure, before disclosing 

documents that are held within the Department of Justice. 

Senator HARRIS. Attorney General—— 

General SESSIONS. I’m not able to make that opinion today. 

Senator HARRIS. Sir, I’m sure you prepared for this hearing today 

and most of the questions that have been presented to you were 

predictable. So my question to you is, did you then review with the 

lawyers of your Department, if you as the top lawyer are unaware, 

what the law is regarding what you can share with us and what 

you cannot share with us, what is privileged and what is not privileged? 

General SESSIONS. We discussed the basic parameters of testimony. I, frankly, have not discussed documentary disclosure rules. 

Senator HARRIS. Will you make a commitment to this committee 

that you will share any written correspondence, be they your calendars, records, notes, e-mails, or anything that has been reduced 

at any point in time in writing, to this committee where legally you 

actually have an obligation to do so? 

General SESSIONS. I will commit to reviewing the rules of the Department and when that issue is raised to respond appropriately. 

Senator HARRIS. Did you have any communications with Russian 

officials for any reason during the campaign that have not been 

disclosed in public or to this committee? 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

43 

General SESSIONS. I don’t recall it. But I have to tell you, I cannot testify to what was said as we were standing at the Republican 

convention before the podium where I spoke. 

Senator HARRIS. My question only—— 

General SESSIONS. I don’t have a detailed memory of that. 

Senator HARRIS. Okay. As it relates to your knowledge, did you 

have any communication with any Russian businessman or any 

Russian nationals? 

General SESSIONS. I don’t believe I had any conversation with 

Russian businessmen or Russian nationals. 

Senator HARRIS. Are you aware of any communication—— 

General SESSIONS. Although a lot of people were at the convention. It’s conceivable that somebody came up to me—— 

Senator HARRIS. Sir, I have just a few—— 

General SESSIONS. Will you let me qualify it? 

Senator HARRIS. Okay. 

General SESSIONS. If I don’t qualify it, you’ll accuse me of lying; 

so I need to be correct as best I can. 

Senator HARRIS. I do want you want to be honest. 

General SESSIONS. And I’m not able to be rushed this fast. It 

makes me nervous. 

Senator HARRIS. Are you aware of any communications with 

other Trump campaign officials and associates that they had with 

Russian officials or any Russian nationals? 

General SESSIONS. I don’t recall that. 

Senator HARRIS. And are you aware—— 

General SESSIONS [continuing]. At this moment. 

Senator HARRIS. Are you aware of any communications with any 

Trump officials or did you have any communications with any officials about Russia or Russian interests in the United States before 

January 20th? 

General SESSIONS. No. I may have had some conversations, and 

I think I did, with the general strategic concept of the possibility 

of whether or not Russia and the United States could get on a more 

harmonious relationship and move off the hostility. The Soviet 

Union did in fact collapse. It’s really a tragic—— 

Senator HARRIS. Thank you. 

General SESSIONS [continuing]. Strategic event that we are not 

able to get along better than we are today. 

Senator HARRIS. Before being sworn in as Attorney General, how 

did you typically communicate with then-candidate or Presidentelect Trump? 

General SESSIONS. Would you repeat that? 

Senator HARRIS. Before you were sworn in as Attorney General, 

how did you typically communicate with then-candidate or President-elect Trump? 

General SESSIONS. I did not submit memoranda. 

Senator HARRIS. Did you communicate in writing? 

General SESSIONS. I did not make formal presentations. 

Senator HARRIS. Did you ever communicate with him in writing? 

General SESSIONS. I don’t believe so. 

Senator HARRIS. And you referred to a long-standing DOJ policy. 

Can you tell us what policy it is you’re talking about? 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

44 

General SESSIONS. Well, I think most Cabinet people, as the witnesses you had before you earlier, those individuals declined to 

comment because we’re all—about conversations with the President—— 

Senator HARRIS. Sir, I’m just asking you about the DOJ policy 

you referred to. 

General SESSIONS [continuing]. Because that’s longstanding policy that goes beyond just the Attorney General. 

Senator HARRIS. Is that policy in writing somewhere? 

General SESSIONS. I think so. 

Senator HARRIS. So did you not consult it before you came before 

this committee, knowing we would ask you questions about it? 

General SESSIONS. Well, we talked about it. The policy is 

based—— 

Senator HARRIS. Did you ask that it would be shown to you? 

General SESSIONS. The policy is based on the principle that the 

President—— 

Senator HARRIS. Sir, I’m not asking about the principle. I am 

asking—— 

General SESSIONS. Well, I’m unable to answer the question. 

Senator HARRIS [continuing]. When you knew you would be 

asked these questions and you would rely on that policy, did you 

not ask—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator HARRIS [continuing]. Your staff to show you the policy 

that would be the basis for your refusing to answer the majority 

of questions that been asked of you? 

Senator MCCAIN. Mr. Chairman, the witness should be allowed 

to answer the question. 

Chairman BURR. Senators will allow the Chair to control the 

hearing. 

Senator Harris, let him answer. 

Senator HARRIS. Please do. Thank you. 

General SESSIONS. We talked about it, and we talked about the 

real principle that’s at stake. It’s one that I have some appreciation 

for, as having spent 15 years in the Department of Justice, 12 as 

United States attorney, and that principle is that the Constitution 

provides the head of the Executive Branch certain privileges, and 

that one of them is confidentiality of communications. And it is improper for agents of any of the departments in the Executive 

Branch to waive that privilege without a clear approval of the 

President. 

Senator HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I have asked—— 

General SESSIONS. And that’s the situation we’re in. 

Senator HARRIS [continuing]. Mr. Sessions for a yes or no? Did 

you ask your staff to—— 

General SESSIONS. So the answer is yes, I consulted. 

Senator HARRIS [continuing]. To review the policy? 

Chairman BURR. The Senator’s time has expired. 

Senator HARRIS. Apparently not. 

Chairman BURR. Senator Cornyn. 

Senator CORNYN. Attorney General Sessions, former Director 

Comey in his letter to FBI employees when he was terminated 

started this way. He said, ‘‘I’ve long believed that a President can 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

45 

fire an FBI director for any reason or no reason at all.’’ Do you 

agree with that? 

General SESSIONS. Yes, and I think that was good for him to say, 

because I believe we’re going to have a new and excellent FBI director, a person who is smart, disciplined, with integrity and proven judgment, that would be good for the Bureau. And I think that 

statement probably was a valuable thing for Director Comey to say 

and I appreciate that he did. 

Senator CORNYN. Just to reiterate the timeline of your recusal 

and the Rosenstein memo and your letter to the President recommending the termination of Director Comey: You recused from the 

Russian investigation on March 2nd, correct? 

General SESSIONS. The formal recusal took place on that day. 

Senator CORNYN. The letter that you wrote forwarding the 

Rosenstein memo to the President as a basis for Director Comey’s 

termination was dated May the 9th, a couple months after you 

recused from the Russian investigation, correct? 

General SESSIONS. I believe that’s correct. 

Senator CORNYN. So isn’t it true that the Russian investigation 

did not factor into your recommendation to fire Director Comey? 

General SESSIONS. That is correct. 

Senator CORNYN. The memorandum written by the Deputy Attorney General, your letter to the President forwarding that recommendation, didn’t mention Russia at all. Is that your recollection? 

General SESSIONS. That is correct. 

Senator CORNYN. So let’s review what the basis was of Deputy 

Attorney General Rosenstein’s recommendation. He wrote in his 

memo on May 9th, he said, ‘‘I cannot defend the Director’s handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton’s emails and I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken.’’ And of course he’s talking 

about Director Comey. 

He went on to say, ‘‘The Director’’—that was Director Comey at 

the time—‘‘was wrong to usurp the Attorney General’s authority on 

July the 5th, 2016.’’ You’ll recall that was the date of the press conference he held. He went on to say that ‘‘The FBI Director is never 

empowered to supplant Federal prosecutors and assume command 

of the Justice Department.’’ 

Finally, he said, ‘‘Compounding the error, the Director ignored 

another longstanding principle, that we do not hold press conferences to release derogatory information about the subject of a 

declined criminal investigation.’’ 

In fact, there is written policy from the Department of Justice, 

is there not, entitled ‘‘Election-Year Sensitivities.’’ Are you familiar 

with the prohibition of the Justice Department making announcements or taking other actions that might interfere with the normal 

elections? 

General SESSIONS. I am generally familiar with that. Some of 

those were the Holder memoranda after my time in the Department. 

Senator CORNYN. Let me—— 

General SESSIONS. There’s always been rules about it, though. 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

46 

Senator CORNYN. Well, let me read just an excerpt from a memo 

from the Attorney General March 9th, 2012, entitled ‘‘Election-Year 

Sensitivities.’’ It says, ‘‘Law enforcement officers and prosecutors 

may never select the timing of investigative steps or criminal 

charges for the purpose of affecting any election or for the purpose 

of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party. Such a purpose is inconsistent with the Department’s 

mission and with the principles of Federal prosecution.’’ 

Do you agree with that? 

General SESSIONS. Essentially, yes. 

Senator CORNYN. So what essentially the Deputy Attorney General said is that former Director Comey violated Department of 

Justice directives when he held a press conference on July 5th, 

2016, he announced that Secretary Clinton was extremely careless 

with classified e-mail, and went on to release other derogatory information including his conclusion that she was extremely careless, 

but yet went on to say that no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute her. 

That is not the role of the FBI director, is it? That is a job for 

the prosecutors at the Department of Justice. That’s what was 

meant by Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein when he said that 

Director Comey usurped the role of the Department of Justice prosecutors; is that right? 

General SESSIONS. That is correct. And former Attorney General 

Bill Barr wrote an op-ed recently in which he said he had assumed 

that Attorney General Lynch had urged Mr. Comey to make this 

announcement so she wouldn’t have to do it. But in fact it appears 

he did it without her approval totally, and that is a pretty stunning 

thing. It is a stunning thing and it violates fundamental powers. 

And then when he reaffirmed that the rightness he believed of 

his decision on May 3rd, I think it was, that was additional confirmation that the Director’s thinking was not clear. 

Chairman BURR. Senator Reed. 

Senator REED. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

First, a point, Attorney General. Senator Heinrich and others 

have raised the issue of longstanding rules. If there are written 

rules to this effect, would you provide them to the committee, 

please? 

General SESSIONS. I will. 

Senator REED. Thank you very much. 

Now, Senator Cornyn has made the point that the whole substance of your recommendation to the President to dismiss Director 

Comey was his unprofessional conduct with respect to the Clinton 

administration. Is that correct? 

General SESSIONS. I supported everything that the Deputy Attorney General put in his memoranda as good and important factors 

to use in determining whether or not he had conducted himself in 

a way that justified continuing in office. I think it pretty well 

speaks for itself. And I believe most of it did deal with that. 

The discussion about his performance was a bipartisan discussion. It began during the election time. Democrats were very unhappy about the way he conducted himself. And in retrospect, in 

looking at it, I think it was more egregious than I may have even 

understood at the time. With regard to—— 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

47 

Senator REED. General, if I may. I don’t want to cut you off. 

General SESSIONS. Okay, I’ll let you go. I’m sorry. 

Senator REED. Excuse me, sir. On July 7th when Mr. Comey 

made his first announcement about the case, you were on Fox 

News and you said first of all, ‘‘Director Comey is a skilled former 

prosecutor,’’ and then you concluded by saying essentially that it’s 

not his problem, it’s Hillary Clinton’s problem. 

Then in November, on November 6th, after Mr. Comey again 

made news in late October by reopening, if you will, the investigation, you said again on Fox News: ‘‘You know, FBI Director Comey 

did the right thing when he found new evidence. He had no choice 

but to report it to the American Congress, where he had under 

oath testified. The investigation was over. He had to correct that 

and say this investigation is ongoing now. I’m sure it’s significant 

or else he wouldn’t have announced that.’’ 

So in July and November Director Comey was doing exactly the 

right thing. You had no criticism of him. You felt that in fact he 

was a skilled professional prosecutor. You felt that his last statement in October was fully justified. So how can you go from those 

statements to agreeing with Mr. Rosenstein and then asking the 

President or recommending he be fired? 

General SESSIONS. I think in retrospect, as all of us began to look 

at that clearly and talk about it, as perspectives of the Department 

of Justice, once the Director had first got involved and embroiled 

in a public discussion of this investigation, which would have been 

better never to have been discussed publicly, and said it was over, 

then when he found new evidence that came up, I think he probably was required to tell Congress that it wasn’t over, that new evidence had been developed. 

It probably would have been better and would have been consistent with the rules of the Department of Justice to never have 

talked about the investigation to begin with. Once you get down 

that road, that’s the kind of thing that you get into. That went 

against classical prosecuting policies that I learned and was taught 

when I was a United States attorney and assistant United States 

attorney. 

Senator REED. If I may ask another question. Your whole 

premise in recommending to the President was the actions in October involving Secretary of State Clinton, the whole Clinton controversy. Did you feel misled when the President announced that 

his real reason for dismissing Mr. Comey was the Russian investigation? 

General SESSIONS. I’m not able to characterize that fact. I 

wouldn’t try to comment on that. 

Senator REED. So you had no inkling that there was anything to 

do with Russia until the President of the United States basically 

declared, not only on TV, but in the Oval Office to the Russian foreign minister saying, the pressure is off now, I got rid of that nutjob? That came to you as a complete surprise? 

General SESSIONS. Well, all I can say is, Senator Reed, that our 

recommendation was put in writing. And I believe it was correct. 

And I believe the President valued it, but how he made his decision 

was his process. 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

48 

Senator REED. And you had no inkling that he was considering 

the Russian investigation? 

General SESSIONS. Well, I’m not going to try to guess what I 

thought at the time—— 

Senator REED. No, that’s fair. Just there is a scenario in which 

this whole recapitulation of Clinton was a story, basically a cover 

story that the President sort of tried to put out, and that he quickly 

abandoned, and his real reason was the Russian investigation, 

which if it had been the case, I would suspect you in principle 

would have recused yourself from any involvement. 

Thank you. 

Chairman BURR. Senator McCain. 

Senator MCCAIN. Over the last few weeks, the Administration 

has characterized your previously undisclosed meetings with Russian Ambassador Kislyak as meetings you took in your official capacity as a U.S. Senator and a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. As Chairman of that committee, let me ask you a 

few questions about that. 

At these meetings, did you raise concerns about the Russian invasion of Ukraine or annexation of Crimea? 

General SESSIONS. I did, Senator McCain. And I would like to follow up a little bit on that. That’s one of the issues that I recall explicitly. The day before my meeting with the Russian ambassador, 

I had met with the Ukrainian ambassador and I heard his concerns 

about Russia. And so I raised those with Mr. Kislyak, and he gave, 

as you can imagine, not one inch. Everything they did, the Russians had done, according to him was correct. And I remember 

pushing back on it, and it was a bit testy on that subject. 

Senator MCCAIN. Knowing you on the committee, I can’t imagine 

that. 

Did you raise concerns about Russia’s support for President 

Bashar Assad and his campaign of indiscriminate violence against 

his own citizens, including his use of chemical weapons? 

General SESSIONS. I don’t recall whether that was discussed or 

not. 

Senator MCCAIN. Did you raise concerns about Russia’s interference in our electoral process or its interference in the electoral 

processes of our allies? 

General SESSIONS. I don’t recall that being discussed. 

Senator MCCAIN. At those meetings, if you spoke with Ambassador Kislyak in your capacity as a member of the Armed Services 

Committee, you presumably talked with him about Russia-related 

security issues that you have demonstrated as important to you as 

a member of the committee? 

General SESSIONS. Did I discuss security issues? 

Senator MCCAIN. I don’t recall you as being particularly vocal on 

such issues. 

General SESSIONS. Repeat that, Senator McCain? I’m sorry. 

Senator MCCAIN. The whole Russia-related security issues that 

you demonstrated as important to you as a member of the committee, did you raise those with him? 

General SESSIONS. You mean, such issues as nuclear issues 

or—— 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

49 

Senator MCCAIN. Yes. In other words, Russia-related security 

issues. In your capacity as the Chairman of the Strategic Forces 

Subcommittee, what Russia-related security issues did you hold 

hearings on and otherwise demonstrate a keen interest in? 

General SESSIONS. We may have discussed that. I just don’t have 

a real recall of the meeting. I was not making a report about it to 

anyone. I just was basically willing to meet and see what he discussed. 

Senator MCCAIN. And his response was? 

General SESSIONS. I don’t recall. 

Senator MCCAIN. During the 2016 campaign season, did you 

have any contacts with any representative, including any American 

lobbyist or agent of any Russian company, within or outside your 

capacity as a member of Congress or a member of the Armed Services Committee? 

General SESSIONS. I don’t believe so. 

Senator MCCAIN. Politico recently reported that in the middle of 

the 2016 elections the FBI found that Russian diplomats whose 

travel the State Department was supposed to track had gone missing. Some turned up wandering around the desert or driving 

around Kansas. Reportedly, intelligence sources concluded, after 

about a year of inattention, these movements indicate, one, that 

Moscow’s espionage ground game has grown stronger and more 

brazen; and that quietly the Kremlin has been trying to map the 

United States telecommunications infrastructure. 

What do you know about this development? And how are the 

Justice Department and other relevant U.S. government agencies 

are responding to it? 

General SESSIONS. We need to do more, Senator McCain. I am 

worried about it. We also see that from other nations with these 

kind of technological skills like China and some of the other nations that are penetrating our business interests, our national security interests. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I did 

support and advocate, and I think you supported, legislation that 

would—and it’s ongoing now—that requires the Defense Department to identify weaknesses in our system and how we can fix 

them. 

But I would say to you, Senator McCain, that in my short tenure 

here in the Department of Justice I’ve been more concerned about 

computer hacking and those issues than I was in the Senate. It’s 

an important issue, you’re correct. 

Senator MCCAIN. The Washington Post reported yesterday Russia has developed a cyber weapon that can disrupt the United 

States’ power grids and telecommunications infrastructure. This 

weapon is similar to what Russia or Russian-allied hackers used to 

disrupt Ukraine’s electrical grid in 2015. 

Can you discuss a little bit in open session how serious that is? 

General SESSIONS. I don’t believe I can discuss the technological 

issues, just to say that it is very disturbing that the Russians continue to push hostile actions in their foreign policy. And it is not 

good for the United States or the world or Russia in my opinion. 

Senator MCCAIN. Do you believe we have a strategy in order to 

counter these ever-increasing threats to our national security and 

our way of life? 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

50 

General SESSIONS. Not sufficient. We do not have a sufficient 

strategy dealing with technological and IT penetrations of our system. I truly believe it’s more important than I ever did before. And 

I appreciate your concern and leadership on that issue. And in fact, 

all of Congress is going to have to do better. 

Chairman BURR. The Senator’s time has expired. 

The Chair would recognize the Vice Chair. 

Vice Chairman WARNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And General Sessions, thank you. And I particularly appreciate 

your last comments with Senator McCain about the seriousness of 

this threat, and it’s why so many of us on this committee are concerned when the whole question of Russian intervention—the 

President continues to refer to it as a witch hunt and fake news. 

And there doesn’t seem to be a recognition of the seriousness of 

this threat. 

I share—I think most members do—the consensus that the Russians massively interfered. They want to continue to interfere, not 

to favor one party of the other, but to favor their own interests. 

And it is of enormous concern that we have to hear from the Administration how they’re going to take that on. 

Also, comments have been made here about where we head in 

terms of some of the Trump associates who may have had contacts 

with Russians. Candidly, we’ve not gotten to all of that yet because 

of the unprecedented firing of the FBI Director that was leading 

this very same Russia investigation. It superseded some of our activities. So those members I hope will equally pursue the very troubling amount of smoke at least that’s out there between individuals 

that were affiliated with the Trump campaign and possible ties 

with Russians. We’ve not—I’ve not reached any conclusion, but 

we’ve got to pursue that. 

A final comment, and I understand your point. But you have to— 

there were a series of comments made by Mr. Comey last week. I 

think members on this side of the aisle have indicated, understand 

executive privilege, understand classified setting. I do think we 

need, as Senator Reed indicated and Senator Harris and others, if 

there are these longstanding written procedures about this ability 

to have some other category to protect the conversations with the 

President, we’d like to get a look at them, because we need to find 

out, in light of some of the contradictions between today and last 

week, where this all heads. 

At the end of the day, this is not only—to restate what I said the 

last time, this is not about relitigating 2016. It is about finding out 

what happened, about some of the serious allegations about potential ties, but on a going-forward basis, making sure that the Russians, who are not finished in terms of their activities didn’t end 

on Election Day at 2016—we know that is ongoing and we have to 

be better prepared on a going-forward basis. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BURR. Thank you, Vice Chairman. 

General SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, one brief comment if I might. 

I do want to say that a change at the top of the FBI should have 

no impact whatsoever on the investigation. Those teams have been 

working, and they’ll continue to work, and they have not been altered in any way. 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

51 

Vice Chairman WARNER. But there were a number of very 

strange comments that Mr. Comey testified last week that you 

could I believe shed some light on. But we’ll continue. 

Thank you, sir. 

Chairman BURR. General Sessions, thank you again for your 

willingness to be here. Not sure that you knew it, but your replacement sat through most of this hearing, Luther Strange. He’s made 

us regret that we don’t have intramural basketball teams. 

[Laughter.] 

General SESSIONS. Big Luther was a good roundball player at 

Tulane. 

Chairman BURR. You’ve been asked a wide range of questions. 

And I think you’ve answered things related to claims about the 

meeting at the Mayflower. You’ve answered questions that surround the reasons of your recusal and the fact that you had never 

been briefed since day one on the investigation. 

But you made clear that you can’t think of any other conversations that you’ve had with Russian officials. You’ve covered in detail the conversation that you had, though brief, with Director 

Comey that he referenced to after his private meeting with the 

President. Just to name a few things that I think you’ve helped us 

to clear up. 

There were several questions that you chose not to answer because of confidentiality with the President. I would only ask you 

now to go back and work with the White House to see if there are 

any areas of questions that they feel comfortable with you answering, and if they do, that you provide those answers in writing to 

the committee. 

I would also be remiss if I didn’t remind you that those documents that you can provide for the committee, they would be helpful to us for the purpose of sorting timelines out. Anything that 

substantiates your testimony today, individuals who might have 

been at events that you’re familiar with, especially those that 

worked for you, would be extremely helpful. 

And more importantly, I want to thank you for your agreement 

to have a continuing dialogue with us, as we might need to ask 

some additional questions as we go a little further down the investigation. That certainly does not have to be a public hearing, but 

it may be an exchange and a dialogue that we have. 

You have helped us tremendously. And we’re grateful to you and 

to Mary for the unbelievable sacrifice that you made in this institution, but also now in this administration. 

This hearing’s now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:07 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

Æ 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER