House Democrats Demand Investigation of Jeff Sessions

They want the Justice Department’s internal watchdog to examine whether the attorney general violated his recusal promise.

sessions

Jeff Malet/ZUMA

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Democrats on two House committees want the Justice Departmentā€™s internal watchdog to investigate whether Attorney General Jeff Sessions violated his pledge to recuse himself from any investigations into the 2016 election when he participated in the firing of FBI Director James Comey. Comey had been in charge of the FBI’s investigation into Russian interference in the election and potential coordination between associates of Donald Trump and the Kremlin.

ā€œThe actions of Attorney General Sessions in collaborating directly with President Trump to fire Director Comey reflect a lapse in judgment by our nationā€™s top law enforcement official and appear to violate multiple promises made by the Attorney General and his aides,ā€ says the letter sent Thursday to DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz. It was signed by Democrats on the judiciary and oversight committees.

Horowitzā€™s office may already be looking into the matter. The IG’s office said in January that it is looking into Comeyā€™s actions in the investigation into Hillary Clintonā€™s handling of her email while she was Secretary of State. That IG probe includes Comey’s decision to hold a press conference last year detailing why he did not believe believe Clinton should face charges and his October 28 letter to members of Congressā€”sent just days before the presidential electionā€”announcing that the FBI had reopened the Clinton investigation.

The IGā€™s office has not commented further on that probe or said if it is looking into the actions of Sessions and other DOJ officials related Comeyā€™s firing. But the January announcement noted the office ā€œwill consider includingā€ in the probe ā€œother issues that may arise during the course of the review,ā€ suggesting Sessions’ role in Comeyā€™s ouster may already be part of the probe.

Other lawmakers, including Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Ma.) and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) have already asked Horowitz to look into Sessionsā€™ recusal. But Thursdayā€™s letter, signed by 35 House members, adds pressure for the IG to weigh in on the attorney generalā€™s conduct.

On March 2, Sessions announced that he would recuse himself from any ā€œexisting or future investigations of any matters related in any way to the campaigns for President of the United States.ā€

The announcement came after news broke that Sessions, who was a leading Trump supporter and confidante during the campaign, had falsely told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he had not had contact with Russian officials during the election contest.

Sessions this month provided a narrow interpretation of that recusal promise.

ā€œI do not believe that it is a sound position to say that, if youā€™re recused for a single case involving any one of the great agencies like DEA or US Marshals or ATF that are part of the Department of Justice, you canā€™t make a decision about the leadership in that agency,ā€ Sessions told the Senate intelligence committee at a June 13 hearing.

Trump has suggested his firing of Comey was at least partly related to the Russia investigation. Sessionsā€™ role in the matter included signing off on a letter by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein making a case for firing Comey based on his handling of the Clinton investigation.

The Democratsā€™ letter says that by broadly rescuing himself from any matters related to the 2016 campaign, Sessions made it irrelevant why Comey was fired.

ā€œBoth matters were supposed to be off limits for the Attorney General,ā€ they write.

The letter says they are turning to the IG because the DOJ has failed to respond to inquires about the recusal.

The Democrats cite a law that bars DOJ officials from participating in any investigation which poses a personal, financial, or political conflict of interest. Penalties for violation include termination.

ā€œWe ask that your office also provide recommendations you determine are warranted relating to the departmentā€™s processes for handling recusals and its administrative procedures for handling related disciplinary actions,ā€ they write.

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 canā€™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 wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”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 canā€™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 wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”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