On Thursday at dawn as evidence that all the cogs of the machine, untwisting the Washington scandal set in motion, the TV channel MSNBC warned viewers that his camera is in a state of readiness to remove the US attorney General Jeff and Roman sessions (Jeff Sessions) on the way to work. When the sessions came, he gave a strained smile and repeated — with minor modifications — the same statement made the previous evening: “I never with any Russian met to discuss the election campaign. And I think those comments are far from reality and false”. On the question of whether it will refuse from participation in a growing investigation about Russia’s attempts to help the presidential campaign of Donald trump, the sessions have got the General response: “I have already said that recuse myself if necessary”.
Sessions commented on the material published in the edition of The Washington Post Wednesday night. According to the newspaper, officials from the Ministry of justice confirmed that during the election campaign he twice met with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak. It turns out that the sessions were misled and senators in answering their questions about his contacts. January 10, during a hearing in the judiciary Committee on the confirmation of candidature and Roman sessions for attorney General, democratic Senator from Minnesota al Franken (Al Franken) asked him what will he do, “if there is some evidence that in the course of this campaign, someone from members of staff trump spoke with representatives of the Russian authorities”. Sessions under oath said, “do any of these actions I don’t know.” He added: “a Couple of times during the campaign I was involved as a Trustee, and no connection with the Russian I had”.
Now we are discussing the meaning of this statement. How sessions builds your protection, only worsens the situation. An official from the administration trump told the journalist that in conversations sessions and Kislyak only “superficially commented on the news related to elections, but this was not the main topic of conversation.” In another case the official of the Ministry of justice called it a lapse of memory, saying the journalist of The Washington Post that “just lack clear memories about what was discussed and what was said.” The very same sessions I tried to use another tactics and now denies that he met with the Ambassador of Russia, “to discuss any political campaign.” He uses the expression, the meaning of which may depend on the meaning of the word “to”.
These painful attempts the main guardian of the rule of law in the Federal government to justify marked a new stage in the “trump-Putin.” Continue to Trump and his associates will also be closely in connection with what they say and what you do not talk about the contacts with the Russians, as with those with whom they met and why. And it will now be harder to gain support for other issues on its agenda. John Dean (John Dean), legal adviser in the administration of Richard Nixon (Richard Nixon), who pleaded guilty to a criminal offence, which consisted in the fact that he participated in concealing the circumstances of Watergate, wrote in his microblog in Twitter: “Hey, Donald, here’s a hint: with time to hide and suppress will not be easier. Leakage of ties with Russia less than two days crossed your speech in joint session in Congress.”
By the time when it’s time to eat Breakfast, standing and Roman sessions to oversee the investigation became less and less realistic even in the eyes of congressional Republicans, which is smaller than the others were inclined to recognize the scope of the investigation of Russia’s actions. A member of the house of representatives, a Republican from Utah, Jason Chaffetz (Jason Chaffetz), who is the Chairman of the Committee on oversight and government reform, has previously argued against claims that he should investigate the case of former national security Advisor Mike Flynn (Mike Flynn). He was forced to resign after only 24 days after taking office due to the fact that he lied to his colleagues, saying that he spoke with the Russian Ambassador on sanctions. Chaffetz, commenting on then it Flynn, said that “it itself is settled”. But on Thursday, Chaffetz encouraged and Roman sessions to ensure that he “clarified his testimony and recused himself”.
As soon as sessions have increasingly drawn into the investigation of Russia’s actions, there are a number of other issues in relation to those audits that are conducted by law enforcement agencies, the intelligence community and Congress.
Which of the advisers and associates of trump met with Russian diplomatic representatives and why? This week in this edition David Remnick (David Remnick) and Joshua Yaffa (Yaffa Joshua) wrote that during the transition period, the trump in-law Jared Kushner (Kushner Jared) met with Kislyak in trump tower. When we asked about it the White house, the press service said only that “during the transitional period, a short meeting took place. Two people spoke about the possible creation in the future of a more open communication channel. This meeting was no different from dozens of other meetings that took place during the election campaign representatives of other foreign countries. After the first meeting, held in the period between the election and the inauguration, they never spoke again”. Given that and Roman sessions and Flynn was caught in the problematic ties to the White house it’s time to give a detailed account of his contacts with the Russian representatives.
Present the trump at the meetings with anyone who is connected with the Russian authorities, in the course of the campaign?
February 16 at a press conference in response to the question about whether any of his staff’s contacts with Russia, trump replied: “none of the people I know.” He also said, “I Have nothing in common with Russia. I didn’t call in Russia for a few years.” In fact, trump spoke with Vladimir Putin less than three weeks before this — what was it, January 28, the White house announced. So how do we understand the blatantly false statements by the President? If he does not recognize the appointments, announced by his administration, how should we interpret his categorical statements that he had no contact with Russian representatives during the election campaign? Now that trump knows that sessions is one of those who was his supporter from the beginning, communicated with the Russian Ambassador, whether he will take steps to convince members of Congress that it to this question seriously and honestly talking about their own actions?
Did any of the companies of the trump money from Russia using alternate channels?
Last month, Reuters provided the latest information on criminal and counterintelligence investigations and announced that the relevant service study “financial operations of Russian individuals and legal entities, which are believed to have connections to the partners of trump.” According to sources of Reuters, the investigated transactions “include investments of Russians in foreign companies through intermediaries and front companies”. Recently, a former Federal Prosecutor with experience in counterintelligence, speaking of such transactions as a promising direction in the work of the investigators, told me: “Of the many different fields this has great potential”.
If you don’t count the people who were official members of the electoral headquarters of the trump, were his assistants in business contacts with people associated with the Russian government?
As reported in Wednesday’s edition of the Times, citing three former American officials who agreed to discuss sensitive information on the condition of anonymity, the intelligence agencies of allied countries (including British and Dutch) “provided information that Russian officials and other persons from the entourage of Russian President Vladimir Putin met in different European cities with his colleagues elected President of the trump.” In the various reports intelligence officials mention the intercepted messages and conversations in the Kremlin and beyond, in which he discussed the contacts with the people associated with the trump.
Who among the Republicans in the Senate and in the house of representatives to intensify their work to investigate Russia’s actions and who will continue to help the White house and deny all of this?
A significant portion of Congress — with the exception of senators John McCain (John McCain) and Lindsey Graham (Lindsey Graham) is not willing to take a stand. The Chairman of the intelligence Committee in the house of representatives Devin Nunez (Devin Nunes) of California, who is responsible for investigating alleged ties between members of the administration trump and Russia, said Monday that “there’s nothing there”, although he still had not received any documents and held hearings.
Does the administration trump any steps to conceal the alleged contacts with Russian officials?
It is a question of concealment. As reported by The Associated Press, chief White house counsel don Boston (Don McGahan) has sent this week a memo to employees in which they were ordered “to preserve the materials that can be associated with the intervention of Russia in election 2016, and to be related to other relevant investigative action.” Last month the Senate intelligence Committee sent to the White house’s own “policy letter on the storage of documents” in which administrators are advised not to destroy any records that may be relevant to the case. History shows that it is very tempting to hide or destroy evidence. As a result the consequences of this so — called crime of concealment quickly spread. In the Watergate scandal more than 30 people eventually pleaded guilty or were convicted of crimes, including perjury, unlawful entry to commit theft, wiretapping and obstruction of investigation and justice. Most of these crimes were not directly connected with the organization of the hacking of the national Committee of the Democratic party in June 1972. They were committed “in the course of concealment”.
And finally, what these revelations mean for the future of the attorney-General Jeff and Roman sessions? Democrats accused him of perjury, given his response to Franken and other senators. But in order to qualify perjury, and to initiate a criminal prosecution, fraud must meet certain criteria — a special legal standard. Meanwhile, sessions found himself in an awkward situation because now his words contradict his previous statements. In 1999, sessions advocated the impeachment of President bill Clinton, saying that “the country’s main guardian of order, which is in accordance with the oath required to observe and defend the Constitution, crossed the line and failed to defend and protect the law…. For our system of justice it is important that we seek the truth”. His words are still relevant today.