This won’t take long.
So I was watching the House of Representatives
hearings yesterday, featuring Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions
III. The House has been anxious to speak with the AG, or General, as many of
the House members seemed wont to do of the course of the hearings. As one news
service put it, it was a tale of two hearings.
The customary parade of alternate questioning,
first Republicans, the majority, and thus controlling Party, then Democrats queried
the Administration’s top lawyer, praising him (GOP), then, pressing him…to
defend his veracity (Democrats). It was quite a display; one that has come to
epitomize the divide that too often separates our country.
Three distinct observations from
the hearings captured my attention. In full disclosure, all three were
exchanges with Democrats. From my vantage point, they were the only ones really
committed to press the “General” on his consistency, or lack thereof, with
regard to his testimony.
1.
Representative Cedric Richmond, LA,
got to the heart of the matter vis-a-vis the difference in the way the crack
epidemic was treated versus the way the current opioid epidemic is being
handled. He preceded that query with questions about the number of African
Americans on Sessions staff (none), the number of African Americans appointed
as Federal Judges (one), and the number of African American Heads of regional FBI offices (he
couldn’t answer, which likely translates to none).
2. Representative Ted Lieu, CA, engaged
“General” Sessions” in a lively exchange. Rep. Lieu inquired of Sessions how
many interactions he’d head with Russian Government official, and former
Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. After the “General enumerated several meetings
(which in earlier testimony he failed to remember/report), the Congressman
said: "What
you just told us under oath was exactly the opposite. So I'm going to ask you
Mr. Sessions, were you lying then when you filled out the form, or are you
lying now?" At
a later point, Lieu asked, “You did have communications with the Russians last
year; isn’t that right? Sessions answered, I had a meeting with the Russian
Ambassador; yes. To which Lieu responded, "Again, either you're lying to the U.S.
Senate or you're lying to the U.S. House of Representatives."
3. Representative Hakeem Jeffries, NY, posed
several questions right off the bat, including: At the Senate Judiciary
Committee in October, you stated under oath, I don’t recall, in some form of
fashion 29 times; is that correct? Sessions had no idea. He further queried, at
the Senate Intelligence Committee in June you stated under oath, I don’t
recall, in some form or fashion 36 times; is that correct? He did not know.
Jeffries went on, asking, in today’s hearing, you’ve said I don’t recall at
least 20 times; is that fair to say? He had no idea. Keep in mind, it was the
very same day, and Sessions had no idea…under oath! Jeffries, however, was not
through. He cited an interview with Lou Dobbs, October 4, 2016 in which Sessions
criticized Hillary Clinton for telling FBI investigators “I can’t remember,”
approximately 35 times. Moreover, he noted Sessions told Dobbs that the
intentional failure to remember could constitute perjury. He then asked the
“General,” Do you still believe the intentional failure to remember can
constitute a criminal act? Sessions testily replied that he did, and charged
Jeffries with being “unfair.” Jeffries also cited a speech Sessions made during
(unsuccessful) Senate hearings to oust Bill Clinton from office after the House
voted to impeach him. He noted an anecdote Sessions shared with Dobbs about a
police officer he prosecuted, after the officer had testified, then amended his
testimony. In essence, he prosecuted him for failing to remember, which he
imputed was perjury. He went on to note the President should get no more leeway
than that police officer, as perjury was one of the counts against Clinton. To
wrap it all up and put a neat little bow on it, he closed by noting Sessions
has amended, corrected, or clarified his testimony on numerous occasions. The
implication was, according to Sessions’ previously used rationale, he has
perjured himself.
And
he did it while returning unused time to the Chair, which was no mean feat,
considering he had only 5 minutes. Nicely played!
By
the way, Sessions is quite adept at buying time by saying he doesn’t understand
the question, asking could you repeat the question, and giving run-on responses
that do not answer questions. This serves two purposes. It benefits him and
detracts from the questioner’s objective to secure answers. It allows him to
dissemble, but more importantly, it fills the questioners’ (especially
Democrats) 5 allocated minutes with empty space, which limits the number of
questions they can ask, and the degree to which he will actually have to answer
questions posed.
Sheer
genius. It’s also evil, but definitely genius, nonetheless. I know there is a
great desire on all sides for this entire Russia madness to end. I’m no seer,
but I have a feeling Sir Winston Churchill nailed this one with his famous
quote:
“This is not the end, this is not even
the beginning of the end, this is just, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”
I’m done; holla back!
Read
my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com. Find a new post each Wednesday.
To
subscribe, click on Follow in the bottom right hand corner
of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in
the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.” Subsequent
editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box.
Consult the links below for more
detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post:
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment