Sessions' Comey Firing: Legal Or Unlawful?

Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, also known as Jeff Sessions, was the 84th United States Attorney General from 2017 to 2018. Sessions was an early supporter of Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and was nominated by Trump for the post of US Attorney General. On February 7, 2017, Sessions was confirmed as attorney general by a vote of 52 to 47. However, on November 7, 2018, Sessions resigned at President Trump's request following months of public and private conflict with the President over his recusal from investigations relating to Russian election interference.

On May 9, 2017, Sessions delivered a memo to President Trump recommending that he fire FBI director James Comey, attaching a memo by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, which called the Director's behaviour indefensible. Trump fired Comey that day. In March 2017, Sessions had recused himself from investigations into Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election. Comey was leading the investigations prior to his dismissal. This has led to questions about whether Sessions broke his recusal vow by recommending Comey's firing.

Did Jeff Sessions violate his recusal vow by advising Comey's firing?

On March 2, 2017, Jeff Sessions, the 84th United States Attorney General, recused himself from any investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. However, he played a central role in the sudden firing of FBI Director James Comey, leading many to wonder if he had violated his recusal vow.

Sessions' exact words were: "I have decided to recuse myself from any existing or future investigations of any matters related in any way to the campaigns for president of the United States." This could be interpreted to mean that he pledged to stay out of affairs related to the Russia probe, but also to other campaign-related investigations, including into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server.

Sessions recommended Comey's firing, writing in a letter that "a fresh start is needed at the leadership of the FBI." President Donald Trump said he based the firing on Comey's very public handling of the bureau's investigation into Clinton's emails. In this context, the move can be seen as purely a personnel decision based on Comey's conduct, and Sessions should have been involved given his job as attorney general.

However, if the dismissal was an effort to stifle the FBI's investigation into Trump campaign ties to Russian meddling in the 2016 election, as some lawmakers have alleged, then Sessions' involvement is much harder to defend. It can also be argued that Sessions should have steered clear of Comey's firing because his recusal applied to investigations of "campaigns," which would include the Clinton email probe.

Staying out of the decision to fire Comey could also have been seen as suspicious, giving critics ammunition to argue that Sessions did so because there was a connection between the firing and the Russia probe.

In conclusion, while there is no clear legal penalty for Sessions' involvement in Comey's firing, and it is unlikely to change Comey's ouster, it does raise important questions about how the decision was made, and whether Sessions violated his recusal vow.

Did Jeff Sessions' involvement in Comey's firing constitute a betrayal?

Jeff Sessions' involvement in James Comey's firing is a complex issue and opinions vary.

Sessions, the 84th United States Attorney General, recused himself from investigations related to the 2016 presidential campaign, yet he played a central role in the sudden firing of FBI Director James Comey. This left many wondering if he had violated his pledge to recuse himself, with Democratic Senator Al Franken of Minnesota calling Sessions' involvement a "complete betrayal".

Sessions recommended Comey's firing, writing in a letter that "a fresh start is needed at the leadership of the FBI". President Donald Trump based the firing on Comey's handling of the bureau's investigation into Clinton's emails. In this context, the move can be seen as a purely personnel decision based on Comey's conduct, and Sessions should have been involved given his job as attorney general.

However, if the dismissal was an effort to stifle the FBI's investigation into Trump campaign ties to Russian meddling in the 2016 election, as some lawmakers have alleged, then Sessions' involvement becomes more questionable. It can be argued that Sessions should have steered clear of Comey's firing because his recusal applied to investigations of "campaigns", which would include the Clinton email probe.

Staying out of the decision could also have been seen as suspicious, giving critics ammunition to argue that Sessions did so because there was a connection between the firing and the Russia probe. Sessions was in a difficult position, and his involvement in Comey's firing is a matter of perspective and political interpretation.

Sessions' recusal meant that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein oversaw the Justice Department's Russia investigation. Rosenstein wrote a memo criticising Comey's handling of the email probe, and Trump stated that this report was a factor in his decision to fire Comey. However, Trump also said he would have fired Comey regardless of the Justice Department's recommendation.

Sessions' firing of Comey, as well as his involvement in other controversial issues, led to his strained relationship with President Trump, who eventually asked for his resignation in 2018.

Should Jeff Sessions have stayed out of Comey's firing?

Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, the 84th Attorney General of the United States, played a central role in the sudden firing of FBI Director James Comey. Sessions had previously recused himself from investigations related to the 2016 presidential campaign, and his involvement in Comey's firing left many wondering if he had violated that pledge.

Sessions' recusal was a result of his contacts with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the 2016 presidential campaign. Sessions had twice met with Kislyak, which he failed to disclose during his confirmation hearing. This led to accusations of perjury and concerns about his impartiality in any investigations related to the campaign.

As Attorney General, Sessions recommended Comey's firing, stating that "a fresh start is needed at the leadership of the FBI." President Donald Trump based the firing on Comey's handling of the bureau's investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails.

The question of whether Sessions should have stayed out of Comey's firing is complex. On the one hand, Sessions' recusal applied to investigations of "campaigns," which could include the Clinton email probe. His involvement could be seen as a breach of his recusal pledge.

However, staying out of the firing could also have been seen as suspicious, as it may have indicated a connection between the firing and the Russia probe. Additionally, as Attorney General, Sessions had a role in personnel decisions, and his job may have required him to be involved in Comey's dismissal.

Ultimately, there is no clear-cut answer to whether Sessions should have stayed out of Comey's firing. It is a matter of interpretation and political perspective. While his involvement may have raised questions, there were also arguments justifying his role in the decision.

Did Jeff Sessions' deputy's involvement in the firing undermine his impartiality?

Jeff Sessions' deputy, Rod Rosenstein, was linked to the firing of FBI Director James Comey. Rosenstein wrote a memo criticising Comey's handling of the email probe into Hillary Clinton's emails. Trump said that this report was a factor in his decision to fire Comey, although he also said he would have done it anyway, regardless of the Justice Department's recommendation.

Rosenstein's involvement in Comey's firing undermines the belief in his impartiality, according to Susan Hennessey, a fellow at the Brookings Institution. She suggests that a special prosecutor should be appointed. Jane Chong, Lawfare's deputy managing editor, agrees that Rosenstein's credibility on the matter has been eviscerated.

What was the motive behind Comey's firing?

The firing of FBI Director James Comey by President Donald Trump was officially based on Comey's very public handling of the bureau's investigation into Clinton's emails. However, the dismissal has been interpreted by some as an attempt to stifle the FBI's investigation into Trump's campaign ties with Russia.

Comey's firing was recommended by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who had previously recused himself from investigations related to the presidential campaign. Sessions' involvement in Comey's firing has been criticised as a "complete betrayal" of his commitment to recusal, and his actions have raised questions about whether he broke his pledge to stay out of certain investigations.

Sessions' recusal applied to investigations of "campaigns", which could include the Clinton email probe. However, staying out of Comey's firing could also have been seen as suspicious, giving rise to criticism that Sessions did so because of a connection between the firing and the Russia probe.

The firing of Comey, who was heading the Russia investigation, has led to questions about whether there was intent to obstruct justice. Sessions' participation in Comey's firing, particularly if he knew that the reason for the dismissal was not related to the handling of the Clinton email matter, could be interpreted as a pretextual basis for Comey's removal and an attempt to slow down the investigation.

In conclusion, the motive behind Comey's firing remains a subject of debate. While the official reason was Comey's handling of the Clinton email investigation, there are suspicions that the true motive was to hinder the FBI's probe into potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Sessions' role in Comey's dismissal has added to the controversy, with questions arising about whether he violated his recusal pledge.

Frequently asked questions