Local News

    Exclusive: Sources contradict the testimony of the US Attorney General that he opposed a meeting with Ross

    Three people contested the testimony of US Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who objected to a proposal that US President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign team meet Ross and said they talked about it with investigators working with Special Inspector Robert Mueller or with subcommittees to Congress.
    Sessions testified before Congress in November 2017 that he “opposed” the proposal made by former campaign adviser George Papadopoulos at a campaign meeting on March 31, 2016. Sessions was then a member of the Alabama Senate and chaired the meeting as president Trump’s foreign policy team.
    Sessions told the Judicial Committee of the Council on November 14 whether the rejection of Papadopoulos proposal to contact Russian people was “yes yes”. Muller has since been meeting with Sessions.
    Three people attending the March meeting told Reuters they had given their accounts of what happened to FBI officials or to congressional investigators investigating Russia’s intervention in the 2016 election.
    Although their stories told Reuters in different respects, the three, who asked not to be identified, said Sessions had not objected to Papadopoulos’ idea.
    However, JD Gordon, who was the national security director of the Trump campaign and also attended the meeting, told media outlets including Reuters in November that Sessions had strongly opposed the Papadopoulos proposal and said no one should talk about it again. Gordon said in response to a request for comment on Saturday that he was sticking to what he said.
    Sessions, by Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores, declined to comment on what he said in his testimony. The Office of the Special Envoy also declined to comment. So far, there have been no comments from Democratic and Republican spokesmen on the Congressional Judiciary Committee.
    Reuters was unable to determine whether Mueller was investigating the discrepancies in the accounts of the March 2016 meeting.
    The accounts of the three, which did not publish, raised new doubts about Sessions’ testimony regarding contact with Ross during the campaign.
    Sessions has not previously disclosed to the Congress meetings he had attended with former Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak and testified in October that he was not aware that any of the campaign’s representatives were in contact with the Russians.
    Some Democrats relied on the contrasting accounts of Sessions’ testimony to say that the justice minister had given false testimony. A criminal charge in this regard requires proof that Sessions will be deceived. Sessions told the Judicial Committee that he had said nothing but the truth and testified as much as he could remember.
    Legal experts expressed divergent views on the importance of the conflict presented by the three sources.
    Some experts say Sessions may say he forgot some events or interpreted his response differently, making any unintended contradiction.

    Related Articles