A Senator Just Tore Into Jeff Sessions for Bailing on a Key Hearing

”Attorneys general of the past did not cower at the request of Congress to fulfill its constitutional oversight responsibility.”

Miguel Juarez Lugo/Zuma

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

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) ripped into Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing Tuesday morning after Rosenstein’s boss, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, skipped out on the hearing and sent him instead. 

“I won’t mince words,” Leahy told Rosenstein during his opening statement. “You’re not the witness we were supposed to hear from today. You’re not the witness who should be behind that table.”

Sessions “abruptly canceled” his appearance before the committee, as well as a scheduled appearance before the House Appropriations Committee, over the weekend, according to Leahy and Sen. Janeen Shaheen (D-N.H.)—”the second time in as many months” that he had done so. Sessions is scheduled to appear later Tuesday in an open hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee to discuss matters related to the ongoing investigation into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 presidential election and President Donald’s Trump’s firing of former FBI Director James Comey, who had been leading that investigation. Sessions formally recused himself from the Russia investigation after it was revealed that he had misled Congress about his contacts with the Russian ambassador, but he nonetheless played a role in Comey’s firing.

In a letter sent to both committee chairs, Sessions said he would send Rosenstein to the appropriations hearings, since “some members [of the committees] have publicly stated their intention to focus their questions on issues related to the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, from which I have recused.” Sessions said the Senate intel committee was the “appropriate forum” for such questions.

Leahy blasted Sessions’ decision during his opening statement:

Attorneys general of the past did not shy away from this committee’s questions, regardless of the topic, regardless of the party. Attorneys general of the past did not cower at the request of Congress to fulfill its constitutional oversight responsibility. And they didn’t agree to come and then cancel at the last minute and send their second in command in their stead, because the members of this committee may have questions they may not want to answer.

Until nowadays. And so, with respect, Mr. Rosenstein…you’re not who I’m interested in speaking with or hearing from today. I do have questions for the attorney general. I want to know why he has provided false testimony to me and to Sen. [Al] Franken [D-Minn.]. I want to know why, if he was recused from the Russia investigation, he played any role in the dismissal of FBI Director Comey. I want to know how he believes he can credibly lead the Justice Department for which he has requested $28.3 billion amid such distressing questions about his actions and his integrity.

Leahy also said Sessions owed it to the 116,000 DOJ “agents, intelligence analysts, attorneys, and support personnel”—along with state, local, and tribal law enforcement officials—to explain the the department’s budget request, which Leahy referred to as “abysmal.” 

Later in the hearing, Shaheen brought up reports that Trump may try to force the removal of Robert Mueller, the special counsel now heading up the Russia probe. Shaheen asked Rosenstein whether he’d seen any evidence of good cause for Mueller’s removal (which would be required for him to fire Mueller). “No, I have not,” Rosenstein said. 

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) followed up, asking Rosenstein whether he’d spoken to Trump about the appointment of Mueller or discussed Mueller with the president in any way. Rosenstein said he hadn’t.

Collins also asked Rosenstein what he’d do if Trump told him to fire Mueller.

“Senators, I’m not going to follow any orders unless I believe those are lawful and appropriate orders,” Rosenstein said. “Under the regulation, special counsel Mueller may be fired only for good cause, and I am required to put that cause in writing. And so that’s what I would do. If there were good cause, I would consider it. If there were not good cause, it wouldn’t matter to me what anybody says.”

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