Sessions: ‘I Have No Basis To Dispute’ Intel’s Report On Russia 2016 Meddling

Attorney General Jeff Sessions speaks during a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Capitol Hill, Tuesday, Nov. 14, 2017 in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
Attorney General Jeff Sessions is sworn in before the House Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill, Tuesday, Nov. 14, 2017 in Washington. Sessions is expected to answer a range of questions from Russian meddling in the ... Attorney General Jeff Sessions is sworn in before the House Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill, Tuesday, Nov. 14, 2017 in Washington. Sessions is expected to answer a range of questions from Russian meddling in the presidential campaign and his interest in a special counsel to investigate the Clinton Foundation. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon) MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

Attorney General Jeff Sessions told the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday that he has “no basis to dispute” the intelligence committee’s assessment that Russia sought to interfere with the 2016 election.

“I do think they have said that they don’t believe that votes were changed,” he added.

His comment comes after President Trump yet again cast his own doubt on the conclusion, in telling reporters Saturday that he “believes” Russian President Vladimir Putin “means it” when he says there was no Russian election meddling. Trump also called some of the previous leaders of the intelligence community, including former FBI director James Comey and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, “political hacks.”

Sessions was asked by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) if he agreed that the leaders of the intelligence community were political hacks.

“I would say to you the President speaks his mind as he chooses,” Sessions said at first, before Jayapal pressed him again.

“I’m saying to you I respect and value our intelligence community,” Sessions said.

Yet, throughout the hearing, Sessions indicated that preventing Russian interference in future elections was not among his top priorities.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) asked him what he was doing on the cybersecurity side to protect from future foreign interference.

“I believe that this is a danger, that I believe investigations have been ongoing, and it’s being considered,” he said. “But, congressman, I have to say, I’m not up to date on the latest of that and I would be pleased to try to get you something in writing as to what we need to do, or at least what we are doing and what we may need to do to protect the integrity of our elections.”

Rep. Bradley Schneider (D-IL) brought up the concerns Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) raised with Sessions at an October Senate Judiciary hearing about preventing future election interference.

“With the 2018 elections less than one year away and given your acknowledgment this is a serious, complex matter that’s deserving a real review, specifically what steps have you taken to protect our elections next year?” Sheneider asked.

“You’ve raised a good point. I have not followed through to see where we are on that,” Sessions said. “And I will personally take action to do so. A lot of things been happening. We are working on a lot of great agenda items. But this one is important and I acknowledge that. And I should be able to give you better information today than I am.”

Latest Muckraker

Notable Replies

  1. “I do think that they have said that they don’t believe that votes were changed.” This is just Sessions being a weasel. No one has argued that Boris and Natasha snuck into the polling places and replaced Hillary ballots with Trump ballots. The question is whether the Russian interference through Facebook, fake news sites, and other methods of disseminating disinformation caused voters who otherwise would have voted for Hillary to vote for Trump in the states they targeted (and that determined the electoral college result). I think there’s quite enough evidence to conclude reasonably that Russian interference could have influenced the result, even if no votes were changed, as that phrase would commonly be understood.

  2. "I should be able to give you better information today than I am.”

    Republican Committee Members: Well, since it’s just a little thing like protecting our electoral system from systematic and pervasive attacks from foreign adversaries, no big deal. Just get back to us sometime…whenever… if you’re not to busy doing other stuff.

  3. This is all a cover for Russian attempts at fixing NBA games.

  4. Avatar for tsp tsp says:

    “With the 2018 elections less than one year away and given your acknowledgment this is a serious, complex matter that’s deserving a real review, specifically what steps have you taken to protect our elections next year?” Sheneider asked.

    Any answer to that is a double-edged sword. Yes, the integrity and security of our electoral system is paramount to the survival of our democracy, but then again, he dare not say anything that would piss off Putin. He cannot afford to make this issue a priority going forward.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

8 more replies

Participants

Avatar for system1 Avatar for daled Avatar for leftflank Avatar for epicurus Avatar for steviedee111 Avatar for joelopines Avatar for tsp Avatar for wintermoon Avatar for professorpoopypants Avatar for jacksonhts Avatar for thinski Avatar for maximus

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Deputy Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: