Last night I was relaxing and watching some television when I got a text message from a friend of mine.
“Quick, turn on MSNBC……Trump and Sessions are screwed!”
I turned on MSNBC to see them discussing supposed “bombshell” reports by the New York Times and Washington Post that were going to destroy Donald Trump’s presidency and force Jeff Sessions to resign from his post as Attorney General.
I decided that instead of watching other people talk about these stories, I would read them for myself.
So I read them and I have to admit, I was left kind of confused as to why this was all being hyped as the next Watergate.
The New York Times article was essentially yet another restatement of the “Trump may have ties to Russia” story that has been making the rounds for months. There were not any specific details of these alleged ties beyond what we have already heard and certainly nothing that would prove the accusations in any kind of concrete manner.
The Washington Post story involved Sessions, claiming that he lied under oath about meeting with a Russian ambassador. Many pundits took this further, claiming it was proof that Sessions colluded with the Russians during the presidential campaign and that he should resign.
For starters, Sessions was asked if he had spoken to the Russians either in his capacity as a surrogate or if he had discussed the 2016 campaign with them.
He said no.
Considering that he was on the Senate Armed Services Committee and spoke to ambassadors from numerous countries constantly, exactly what is out of the ordinary here? Senator Ted Cruz, who also sits on the SASC, said he has met with a half dozen ambassadors in the past few months. Senator Joe Manchin took it a step further, saying he had also met with the same Russian ambassador Sessions did.
Senator Claire McCaskill came out firing this morning, saying that Sessions should resign and claiming members of the SASC NEVER meet with ambassadors. Except The Federalist’s Sean Davis uncovered two of McCaskill’s old tweets – one from 2013 and one from 2015 – where she herself acknowledges meeting with a Russian ambassador.
So unless there are recordings of the conversations Sessions had that prove he spoke to the ambassador about the election, there is no reason to believe he was not simply doing his job as a member of the SASC and there is certainly no way to prove perjury.
Sessions is just a pawn in all of this, however, as it becomes more clear by the day that certain people simply will not accept Donald Trump as president and are throwing around anti-Russia hysteria as a convenient scapegoat.
It would appear Joseph McCarthy was born a few decades too early.
This is not to say there shouldn’t be an investigation of some sort. If the intelligence community and the house believe there is sufficient cause to hold hearings on the whole Russia matter, then fine, go ahead.
Put everything on the table.
But until we see some real, tangible evidence of wrongdoing, perhaps it would be wise to stop jumping to conclusions that are heavy on innuendo and anonymous whispers and quite light on actual proof.
It might also be wise to remember that Jeff Sessions is a long-standing member of the federal government in good standing who – regardless of what you think of him - has never had any hint of corruption in his distinguished career.
So maybe we should stop dragging his good name through the mud without anything substantial to back it up.