George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty on October 5, 2017, to making false statements to the FBI. He had raised the idea of a Trump-Putin meeting at a March 31, 2016, gathering of the campaign’s national security advisory committee, which Jeff Sessions chaired. On November 14, Sessions appeared before the House Judiciary Committee as Attorney General, and opened by revising his own sworn account.
The revision, delivered in the opening statement
Frankly, I had no recollection of this meeting until I saw these news reports. I do now recall the March 2016 meeting at the Trump Hotel that Mr. Papadopoulos attended, but I have no clear recollection of the details of what he said at that meeting. After reading his account and to the best of my recollection, I believe that I wanted to make clear to him that he was not authorized to represent the campaign with the Russian Government or any other foreign government, for that matter.
But I did not recall this event, which occurred 18 months before my testimony of a few weeks ago. And I would gladly have reported it had I remembered it, because I pushed back against his suggestion that I thought may have been improper.
All of you have been in campaigns, let me just suggest, but most of you have not participated in a Presidential campaign, and none of you had a part in the Trump campaign. And it was a brilliant campaign, I think, in many ways, but it was a form of chaos every day from day one. We traveled sometimes to several places in one day. Sleep was in short supply. And I was still a full-time Senator with a very full schedule.
But I will not accept, and reject, accusations that I have ever lied. That is a lie. Let me be clear: I have at all times conducted myself honorably and in a manner consistent with the high standards and responsibilities of the office of Attorney General, which I revere.
[Hearing transcript, November 14, 2017, opening statement of Attorney General Sessions.]
Ranking Member Conyers asks for a yes or a no
Ranking Member John Conyers began by putting three of the President’s tweets about the Justice Department on the screen.
ConyersI believe he is referring to Senator Elizabeth Warren in that last one. When Richard Nixon spoke about us that way, at least he had the courtesy to do it behind closed doors. Mr. Attorney General, a few questions for you. "Yes" or "no," please. In a functioning democracy, is it common for the leader of the country to order the criminal justice system to retaliate against his political opponents?
SessionsIs that a question?
ConyersYes, that's the question.
SessionsIs it proper? Is that what you were----
ConyersNo. You answer to me whether it is, "yes" or "no." Your response?
SessionsBut I didn't quite catch the beginning of the question. I'm sorry.
ConyersAll right. In a functioning democracy, is it common for the leader of the country to order the criminal justice system to retaliate against his political opponents?
SessionsMr. Conyers, I would say that it's--the Department of Justice can never be used to retaliate politically against opponents, and that would be wrong.
ConyersI interpret that as "no." You----
SessionsMy answer stands for itself, I guess.
ConyersWell, I would just--that would make it a little easier, if you just responded "yes" or "no," if you can. Here's another: Should the President of the United States make public comments that might influence a pending criminal investigation?
SessionsTake great care in those issues.
ConyersCould you respond "yes" or "no"?
SessionsWell, I don't know exactly the facts of what you're raising and what amounts to the concern you have. I would say it's improper to influence--it would be-- a President cannot improperly influence an investigation.
ConyersOkay.
SessionsAnd I have not been improperly influenced and would not be improperly influenced.
ConyersAll right.
SessionsThe President speaks his mind.
ConyersYes, sir.
SessionsHe's bold and direct about what he says.
ConyersBut----
SessionsThe people elected him. But we do our duty every day based on the law and facts.
ConyersReclaiming my time, I'm not impugning these comments to you or what you would do in advance. Last night, sir, the Assistant Attorney General sent the chairman a letter suggesting that the Attorney General has directed senior Federal prosecutors to evaluate certain issues, like the sale of Uranium One in 2010. Now, at your confirmation hearing, you said, "I believe the proper thing for me to do would be to recuse myself from any questions involving those kinds of investigations that involve Secretary Clinton and that were raised during the campaign or to be otherwise connected to it." Now for my "yes" or "no" question. Are you recused from investigations that involve Secretary Clinton?
SessionsMr. Chairman, it's--I cannot answer that "yes" or "no," because, under the policies of the Department of Justice, to announce recusal in any investigation would reveal the existence of that investigation, and the top ethics officials have advised me I should not do so.
[Hearing transcript, November 14, 2017, questioning by Rep. Conyers.]
The photograph of the March 31 meeting
Representative Jerrold Nadler put an image of the meeting on the screen and read the Attorney General his own Senate testimony from four weeks earlier.
NadlerThank you. Mr. Attorney General, following up on the questions from Mr. Conyers, at your confirmation hearing, you said, "I believe the proper thing for me to do would be to recuse myself from any questions involving these kinds of investigations that involve Secretary Clinton and that were raised during the campaign or to be otherwise connected to it," close quote. Do you stand by that statement, "yes" or "no"?
SessionsYes.
NadlerThank you. Now, I want to show you an image from March 31, 2016, of a meeting of the Trump campaign national security advisory committee, which you chaired, with yourself in attendance, along with then-candidate Donald Trump and Mr. George Papadopoulos. Mr. Papadopoulos pled guilty on October 5 to making false statements to the FBI. The charging papers filed by Special Counsel Mueller describe the March 31 meeting, where Mr. Papadopoulos told the group that he had connections and could help arrange a meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. After the meeting, Mr. Papadopoulos continued to communicate with the Russian Government on behalf of the Trump campaign and appears to have told several senior campaign officials about it. Now, here is the problem. On October 18 of this year, you said under oath in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, quote, "A continuing exchange of information between Trump's surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian Government did not happen, at least not to my knowledge and not with me." Senator Franken asked, "You don't believe that surrogates from the Trump campaign had communications with the Russians?", to which you responded, "I did not, and I'm not aware of anyone else that did," unquote. Now, we now know that, one, the campaign had communications with the Russians through Mr. Papadopoulos and others, and, two, you seem to have been aware of the fact at the time. So let's try and correct the earlier testimony now for the record. "Yes" or "no," did you chair the March 31, 2016, meeting of the national security advisory committee?
SessionsI did chair that meeting.
NadlerThank you. "Yes" or "no," did Mr. Papadopoulos mention his outreach to the Russian Government during that meeting?
SessionsHe made some comment to that effect----
Nadler"Yes." Thank you.
SessionsAs I remember----
NadlerI don't have----
SessionsAfter having read it in a newspaper----
NadlerI asked for "yes" or "no." I don't have time.
SessionsAll right.
NadlerThere are reports that you "shut George down," unquote, when he proposed that meeting with Putin. Is this correct, "yes" or "no"?
SessionsYes. I pushed back, I will just say it that way, because it was----
Nadler"Yes." Your answer is "yes." So you were obviously concerned by Mr. Papadopoulos' connections and his possibly arranging a meeting with Putin. Now, again, "yes" or "no," did anyone else at that meeting, including then-candidate Trump, react in any way to what Mr. Papadopoulos had presented?
SessionsI don't recall.
NadlerOkay. So your testimony is that neither Donald Trump nor anyone else at the meeting expressed any interest in meeting the Russian President or had any concerns about communications between the campaign and the Russians?
SessionsI don't recall.
NadlerOkay. Now, we know from multiple sources, including the Papadopoulos guilty plea, Carter Page's interview with the Intelligence Committee, and Donald Trump, Jr.'s emails, among others, that, contrary to your earlier testimony, there were continued efforts to communicate with the Russians on behalf of the Trump campaign. We have established that you knew about at least some of these efforts. They caused you such concern that you, quote, "shut George down." I want to know what you did with this information. "Yes" or "no," after the March 31 meeting, did you take any steps to prevent Trump campaign officials, advisers, or employees from further outreach to the Russians?
SessionsMr. Nadler, let me just say it this way. I pushed back at that. You made statements that he, in fact----
NadlerBut did you----
SessionsAt the meeting, I pushed back.
NadlerWe know that. But did you----
SessionsAll right.
NadlerAfter the meeting?
SessionsI have to be able to answer. I can't--I can't be able to----
NadlerI only have 5 minutes. I'm asking you----
SessionsI'm not going to be able to answer if I can't answer completely.
NadlerYou said you pushed back. We accept that. After the meeting, did you take any further steps to prevent Trump campaign officials, advisers, or employees from further outreach to the Russians after you stopped it or pushed back at that meeting?
SessionsWhat I want to say to you is you allege there were some further contacts later. I don't believe I had any knowledge of any further contacts----
NadlerOkay.
SessionsAnd I was not in regular contact with Mr. Papadopoulos.
NadlerSo your answer is "no" because you don't think there were any such contacts. So you----
SessionsI'm not aware of it.
NadlerOkay. So I was going to ask you a question of did you raise the issue with various people, but your answer is "no."
SessionsTo the best of my recollection.
NadlerOkay. So your testimony today is that you communicated with nobody in the campaign about this matter after the March 31 meeting because nothing happened.
SessionsRepeat that.
NadlerYour testimony, therefore, is that you communicated with nobody in the campaign about this matter after the March 31 meeting----
SessionsI don't recall it.
NadlerYou don't recall.
[Hearing transcript, November 14, 2017, questioning by Rep. Nadler.]