Sessions Testifies Before House Judiciary Committee — And Disappoints Democrats
Nov 14, 2017
RUSH: Attorney General Jeff Sessions testifying today before the House Judiciary Committee. It had its moments of high comedy when Sheila Jackson Lee got her turn to start asking questions. This is the representative from Houston who took over the seat for the esteemed Mickey Leland when he was killed in an accident in Ethiopia. He was on a mission there to feed the poor, and he died there, plane crash or some such thing. I forget the specific details, but she took over his seat.
She is the member of Congress who, on a visit to NASA, was looking at the Mars Rover — they had the video turned on — the Mars Rover was sending pictures back from Mars. Sheila Jackson Lee asked NASA administrators if they were gonna have it go over to where the astronauts had planted the flag.
Of course, the NASA administrators had to deal with that with much diplomacy, because of course we’d never been to Mars and as far as we know there’s not an American flag there. We do know that if there was an American flag there, Colin Kaepernick would take a knee, even on Mars. It’s on the moon. And the NASA administrators had to very diplomatically remind her, “No, no. You’re getting our moon and the planet of Mars confused.”
“Oh, yeah, oh, yeah, oh, yeah.” So she didn’t have much time when she got to her turn to ask questions, and she really didn’t want any answers. I mean, it’s just these rat-tat-tat, one allegation, one accusation after another. And Jim Jordan, congressman from Ohio, had a very pointed question to Sessions about why he has not appointed a special counsel on the Clintons.
RUSH: Okay, the Jeff Sessions hearings today before the House Intelligence Committee. Now, I have to tell you something. I watched some of this during the breaks, and I’m gonna be really up front with you: It was embarrassing. It was embarrassing to have these various members (and most of the ones that I’m talking about are Democrats) who apparently had no problem whatsoever illustrating their complete ignorance of the U.S. Constitution. For example, one Democrat was asking Sessions if he would have the guts to prosecute Trump for expressing an interest in any investigation.
“Because, you know, that’s unconstitutional, Mr. Attorney General. That is a violation. The president cannot do that!”
It is not. The president runs the Justice Department! The president is entitled to know anything going on! It may not be politically correct, but he can. He can ask for any bit of information he wants and be given it. But here you had a Democrat claiming that Sessions didn’t have the guts to prosecute Trump in such a circumstance. Just sheer illiteracy of the United States Constitution — and that doesn’t even talk about Sheila Jackson Lee. I mean, it’s embarrassing. You know, we talk about what kids in school today are learning and what they think.
My friends, some of these elected members of our Congress are so ignorant of the founding documents of this country that it is scary. They just make it up, whatever they think is or is not constitutional — and with Trump, most everything is unconstitutional that these doing. And then they badger. They badger Sessions in a way that most judges would not even permit it, because they ask him questions that he can’t answer. If he answers one way, they accuse him of lying and hiding information.
If he doesn’t answer, they accuse him of stonewalling and not knowing or hiding something. And then most of their questions had innuendo that he’s lying about the Russians and that he did collude and that he knows Trump colluded, but he doesn’t have the guts to say so. It was a spectacle. It is ignorance. It’s stupidity on parade! We have a little bit of it. We’ll start here. This is the question from John Conyers. Conyers had a list of questions. He could barely read them, and he tried to get Sessions.
“These are all ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ I just want to know, yes or no: Did you beat your wife before you left for the hearing today? When you talked to the Russians about colluding, did Hillary Clinton’s name come up positive or not?” Stupid questions like that. Sessions said (impression), “I’m not sure I understand what you’re asking me, Congressman,” and Conyers would get frustrated and accusing him of stalling. But here is one of Conyers’ questions: “Are you recused from investigations that involve Secretary Clinton?”
SESSIONS: 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.
RUSH: Oh, that didn’t sit well with the Democrats! “All we want know is you recused yourself from Hillary! Have you recused yourself from anything to do with lawbreaking? Have you recused yourself from anything that might have to do with anything Trump did in a gambling casino?” They’ve been asking all these asinine questions, and it’s all been one giant trick, attempted trick. Jerry Nadler, Democrat, New York: “Did Mr. Papadopoulos mention his outreach to the Russian government during that meeting?”
SESSIONS: He made some comment to that effect, as I remember, after having —
NADLER: Answer yes or no. I don’t have time!
SESSIONS: All right.
NADLER: There are reports that you “shut George down,” unquote, when he proposed that meeting with Putin. Is this correct? Yes or no.
SESSIONS: Yes. I pushed back. I will just say it that way, because it was —
NADLER: Yes. Your answer is yes. So you are 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?
SESSIONS: I don’t recall.
RUSH: Now, there’s a technique here the Democrats obviously have settled upon. Every question: “Yes or no! Yes or no!” Conyers did it. You just heard this guy, Jerrold Nadler, do it. Sheila Jackson Lee tried it. “Yes or no! Just yes or no! I don’t have any time. Republicans aren’t giving me enough time. This is a rigged hearing. We don’t have time here on the Democrat side! We don’t have time. You don’t speak fast enough pick up lie. Just yes or no!” And that’s what he was up against all day here.
The next question, Sheila Jackson Lee: “These young women have accused this individual, Roy Moore, who’s running for a federal office, of child sexual activity. Do you believe these women?”
SESSIONS: I am — have no reason to doubt these young women.
JACKSON LEE: And with that in mind, if you believe these young women, do you believe Judge Moore should be seated in the Senate if he wins, and would you introduce investigations by the DOJ regarding his actions?
SESSIONS: We will evaluate every case as to whether or not it should be investigated. This kind of case would normally be a state case.
RUSH: And we have time for one more. This is Sheila Jackson Lee asking Sessions about his previous testimony in the Senate on Trump campaign contacts with the Russians during the campaign.
JACKSON LEE: Do you want to admit under oath that you did not tell the truth or misrepresented or do you want to correct your testimony right now?
SESSIONS: You’re referring to my testimony at confirmation?
JACKSON LEE: Before the Senate Intelligence Committee. My time is short and I have two more questions, please.
SESSIONS: Well, I’m not able to respond because I don’t think I understand what you were saying.
JACKSON LEE: I’m asking your Intelligence Committee testimony, do you want to change it where you indicated you had no knowledge of involvement of the Trump individuals involved in conversations regarding the Trump campaign, Russians. And Mr. Miller, uh, gave, uh, supported, uh, Mr. Trump’s, um, press conference where he said, “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’ll be able to find the 30,000 emails.” Do you want to change your testimony that was where you said “I have no knowledge of any such conversation by anyone connected to the Trump campaign regarding Russians involved in the campaign”? That was, uh, a testimony on June 13.
SESSIONS: I’m not able to understand —
JACKSON LEE: All right, let me move forward.
RUSH: That’s a comedy. The woman’s a joke. There’s no way anybody could answer this. She doesn’t know what she’s saying. The staff writes the questions for her and she rehearses it and makes sure she speaks loudly so it sounds like she’s projecting with confidence. This is a joke.
And here we’re back to, I’ll never forget, this is one of the things I’m jealous that Trump did this. This is the kind of thing that we do on this program. “Hey, Russians, if you’re out there, maybe you can find the 30,000 Hillary emails and give ’em to the CIA or something. We’re looking real hard. We can’t find the 30,000 emails.” It was a laugh riot.
Instead, the Democrats in the media accuse Trump of inviting the Russians to hack Hillary’s server. And Sheila Jackson Lee is all over this still, and she’s trying to get Sessions to admit that that was improper contact with the Russians and that Trump was encouraging them. And, by the way, Stephen Miller, Stephen Miller, Stephen Miller. She didn’t know what Stephen Miller did. The staff put his name in the question, just put his name in there because they think it’s negative.
It’s a joke. These people are insults to everybody’s intelligence and they are insults to the Constitution. But they’re duly elected by their idiot voters. And so we have to put up with them being in there. But man is it embarrassing.
RUSH: Look. This is not a court of law. These Democrats cannot direct any witness how to answer. A prosecutor can, a defense attorney can, judge can, but these guys, they can’t control what Sessions says. And that’s not the point. They don’t even want him to answer.
All they’re doing is making speeches under the guise of questions. They’re creating sound bites for their own reelection or they’re creating sound bites for the news. They’re doing anything they can to blaspheme, impugn Sessions or what have you. They’re not interested in his answers to anything. The questions are designed to make him look guilty no matter what he says. “Yes or no, yes or no.” They can’t control how he answers. And, you know, the chairman could point that out now and then.