Jeff Sessions Channels Donald Trump on Russian Hacking

Asked about Moscow’s meddling, Trump’s pick for attorney general wouldn’t accept the FBI’s findings.

 

During his confirmation hearing on Tuesday morning, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Donald Trump’s pick to be attorney general, engaged in a curious exchange with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a member of the Senate judiciary committee. Graham asked Sessions a simple question about Russian hacking during the 2016 campaign, and Sessions…well, basically said nothing. As attorney general, he will oversee the FBI, which is part of the Justice Department, and the FBI, along with other national security agencies, has concluded that Russian intelligence mounted an extensive covert operation to influence the election for Trump’s benefit. Yet Sessions had little to say on this matter.

Graham opened with a simple query: “Do you think the Russians were behind hacking into our election?” Sessions replied, “I have done no research into that. I know just what the media says about it.” This was a Trumpy reply, for Sessions was referencing media reports, not the US intelligence community assessment released last week that definitively concluded Russia had hacked Democratic targets and disseminated swiped emails to help Trump. He could have said, “I know what US intelligence says.” But he chose not to.

The exchange continued:

Graham: Do you think you could get briefed anytime soon?

Sessions: Well, I’ll need to.

Graham: I think you do too. [Do] you like the FBI?

Sessions: Do I like them?

Graham: Yeah.

Sessions: Some of my best friends are FBI agents.

Graham: Do you generally trust them?

Sessions: Yes.

Graham: Are you aware of the fact that the FBI has concluded that it was the Russian intelligence services who hacked into the DNC and Podesta’s emails?

Sessions: I do understand that. At least that’s what’s been reported, and I’ve not been briefed by them on the subject.

With this answer—referring to media reports—Sessions was still apparently trying to not say anything that could be interpreted as a sign he fully accepted the official findings as conclusive and accurate. Apparently, the fellow who wants to run the Justice Department did not bother to look at the intelligence community report on Russian hacking put out last week. (It’s short.)

Graham pressed on:

Graham: From your point of view, there’s no reason for us to be suspicious of them?

Sessions: Of their decision?

Graham: Yeah.

Sessions: I’m sure it was honorably reached.

Honorably reached? Not that it was an accurate evaluation. Sessions wouldn’t say that. He was only stating that he believed that the FBI had not purposefully cooked the books. That was hardly a full embrace of the conclusions. The conversation went on:

Graham: How do you feel about a foreign entity trying to interfere in our election? I’m not saying they changed the outcome, but it’s pretty clear to me they did. How do you feel about it? What should we do?

Stop the presses! Graham just said that the Russian hacking did change the outcome of the election. The small number of Republicans who have expressed concern about the intervention have generally stuck to the talking point that the result of the election should not be questioned. Yet here was Graham saying the Russian operation determined that Trump became president. Back to the tape:

Sessions: Sen. Graham, I think it’s a significant event. We have penetration apparently throughout our government by foreign entities. We know the Chinese have revealed millions of background information on millions of people in the United States, and these, I suppose, ultimately are part of international big-power politics. But when a nation uses their improperly gained or intelligence-wise gained information to take policy positions that impact another nation’s democracy or their approach to any issue, then that raises real serious matters. It’s really, I suppose, goes in many ways to the State Department, our Defense Department, and how we, as a nation, have to react to that, which would include developing some protocols where when people breach our systems, that a price is paid even if we can’t prove the exact person who did it.

In this word salad, Sessions, once again, would not clearly state that Russia was behind this penetration and that consequently Moscow should be punished. As a Trump partisan, Sessions could not recognize a reality that Trump himself has not accepted. That raises the question of how independent he will be as attorney general, if confirmed, and how vigorously the FBI will be able to investigate this Russian operation on his watch.

 

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate