Franken to Sessions: American public cannot trust your word

“We must get to the bottom of what happened so that we can prevent it from happening again,” Franken wrote.

A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment.

Text of Sen. Franken’s Letter

November 2, 2017

The Honorable Jeff Sessions
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530

Dear Attorney General Sessions:

Once again, developments in the ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election have brought to light evidence that you failed to tell the truth about your interactions with Russian operatives during the campaign, as well as your awareness of Russian contacts by other members of the Trump campaign team. This is another example in an alarming pattern in which you, the nation’s top law enforcement officer, apparently failed to tell the truth, under oath, about the Trump team’s contacts with agents of Russia-a hostile foreign power that interfered in the 2016 election. We must get to the bottom of what happened so that we can prevent it from happening again, and I am deeply troubled that this newest revelation strongly suggests that the Senate-and the American public-cannot trust your word.

Court documents unsealed on Monday revealed that on October 5, 2017, former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to making false statements and omissions to the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding his communications with Russian operatives.[1] After Mr. Papadopoulos’s guilty plea was unsealed, new revelations emerged about Mr. Papadopoulos’s interactions with you and other members of the Trump campaign. The facts, as laid out in the court documents unsealed this week, are that Mr. Papadopoulos became a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser in early March. He subsequently met with a professor who “claimed to have substantial connections with Russian government officials,” and who took an interest in Mr. Papadopoulos precisely because of Mr. Papadopoulos’s role in the campaign. The second time that Mr. Papadopoulos met with the professor, on or about March 24, a female Russian national introduced as a relative of President Vladimir Putin also attended the meeting. Following Mr. Papadopoulos’s meetings, in late March he emailed “several members of the Campaign’s foreign policy team” and described the purpose of his meetings as “to arrange a meeting between us and the Russian leadership to discuss U.S.-Russia ties under President Trump.”

On March 3, 2016, then-candidate Trump announced that he selected you to serve as the chairman of his National Security Advisory Committee.[2] In that role, you advised the candidate on foreign policy and national security matters. On March 31, 2016, the Trump campaign convened a meeting of that committee in Washington, DC, at which Mr. Papadopoulos “introduced himself to the group” of campaign advisers and “stated, in sum and substance, that he had connections that could help arrange a meeting between then-candidate Trump and President Putin.”[3] That same day, then-candidate Trump posted a photograph of the meeting to Instagram.[4] The photograph depicts you addressing the meeting’s participants, including the candidate; Mr. Papadopoulos is seated two seats to your left.[5]

Following the unsealing of Mr. Papadopoulos’s court documents, new reports emerged describing the representations he made to you and other Trump campaign officials at the March 31 meeting. During the meeting, Mr. Papadopoulos reportedly “spoke for a few minutes about his Russian contacts and the prospects for a meeting with the Russian president.”[6] Then-candidate Trump reportedly “listened with interest and asked questions of Mr. Papadopoulos.”[7] It was also reported, however, that several participants raised concerns about Mr. Papadopoulos’s suggestion that the candidate meet with President Putin.[8] According to an adviser present at the meeting, you reportedly “shut George [Papadopoulos] down” and you said, “[w]e’re not going to do it. I’d prefer that nobody speak about this again.”[9] If your statements at the March 31 meeting were reported accurately, it would signal that you reacted strongly to Mr. Papadopoulos discussing his contacts with Russians and his offer to facilitate a meeting between then-candidate Trump and Russian President Putin. Such a strong reaction also suggests that Mr. Papadopoulos’s comments during the meeting would have been memorable to you.

Nonetheless, in sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, you have repeatedly stated that you personally did not communicate with Russians and that you were unaware of communications between Russians and other members of the Trump campaign. During your confirmation hearing on January 10, 2017, when confronted with reports that there was a “continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump’s surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government,” you stated that you were “not aware of those activities.”[10] You also said that you personally “did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it.” Senator Leahy later asked you, in writing, whether you had “been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day.” You answered no. It was later revealed that you had, in fact, met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the campaign-at least three times.

On October 18, 2017, during your most recent appearance before the Judiciary Committee, I asked you to clarify your shifting explanations for your own interactions with the Russian ambassador. Once again, instead of responding only to the questions asked, you revisited the initial reports of a “continuing exchange of information” between Russian operatives and the Trump campaign.[11] You stated that when you were first confronted with this report during your confirmation hearing, you were “taken aback by this dramatic statement that I’d never heard before and knew nothing about.” You said that “a continuing exchange of information between Trump’s surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government…did not happen, at least not to my knowledge, and not with me.” Describing your January testimony, you said, “[a]nd I said, I’m not aware of those activities. And I wasn’t, and am not. I don’t believe they occurred.”

However, reports that emerged following the unsealing of Mr. Papadopoulos’s plea agreement shed new light on your previous testimony and raise important questions about the extent to which you were aware of contacts between the Russians and the Trump campaign.

The interference by a hostile foreign power in our nation’s elections represents an attack on democracy itself. As our nation’s chief law enforcement officer, you have sworn to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” and to “bear true faith and allegiance to the same.”[12] Your oath of office, and indeed our national security, require that you speak with a clear and consistent voice when discussing what you know about any Russian efforts to influence the 2016 campaign, including any links between individuals associated with the campaign and Russian operatives.

The American people deserve a complete and accurate accounting of the facts. Please respond, in writing, to the following questions by Friday, November 10, 2017:

1. On March 24, 2016, Mr. Papadopoulos emailed “several members of the Campaign’s foreign policy team” about his meeting with the professor and the female Russian national, and wrote that he met with them “to arrange a meeting between us and the Russian leadership to discuss U.S.-Russia ties under President Trump.”[13]

• Did you receive Mr. Papadopoulos’s email, either directly from Mr. Papadopoulos or from another party? If from another party, from whom did you receive it?

• Were you told about the content of Mr. Papadopoulos’s March 24, 2016, email? If so, who told you about the email and when? Please describe the content of that conversation.

• Did you exchange emails or text messages with Mr. Papadopoulos at any point before, during, or after the campaign? If so, please provide copies of those messages.
• Did you send or receive emails or text messages about or concerning Mr. Papadopoulos at any point before, during, or after the campaign? If so, please provide copies of those messages.

2.  On March 31, 2016, Mr. Papadopoulos attended a national security meeting organized by the Trump campaign, which both you and then-candidate Trump attended. At that meeting, Mr. Papadopoulos “stated, in sum and substance, that he had connections that could help arrange a meeting between then-candidate Trump and President Putin.”

• Please describe the conversation that took place at the March 31, 2016, meeting, including Mr. Papadopoulos’s remarks regarding his Russian connections, your response to Mr. Papadopoulos’s remarks, and then-candidate Trump’s response to Mr. Papadopoulos’s remarks.

• Is it correct and accurate that Mr. Papadopoulos “spoke for a few minutes” about his Russian contacts and about arranging a meeting between then-candidate Trump and the Russian president during the March 31, 2016 meeting?

• Is it correct and accurate that several participants at the March 31, 2016, meeting raised concerns about Mr. Papadopoulos’s suggestion? If so, please describe who raised concerns and the nature of their concerns.

• Did you or anyone else present at the March 31, 2016, meeting express concerns about Mr. Papadopoulos’s stated “connections that could help arrange a meeting between then-candidate Trump and President Putin,” either during or after the meeting, or were the concerns limited to the suggestion that the candidate meet with the Russian president? If so, please describe who raised concerns and the nature of their concerns.

• Is it correct and accurate that you “shut George [Papadopoulos] down” when he proposed “a meeting between then-candidate Trump and President Putin”? If so, please explain why you sought to end discussion of Mr. Papadopoulos’s suggestion at the March 31, 2016, meeting. If not, please explain how that characterization of your comments is incorrect.

• Is it correct and accurate that in response to Mr. Papadopoulos’s suggestion, you said, “[w]e’re not going to do it. I’d prefer that nobody speak about this again”? If so, please explain why you expressed that view in reaction to Mr. Papadopoulos’s suggestion at the March 31, 2016, meeting. If not, please explain how that characterization of your comments is incorrect.
• Was the March 31, 2016, meeting the first time that you learned of Mr. Papadopoulos’s Russian contacts? If not, please describe when you first learned of his Russian contacts, from whom you learned of his Russian contacts, and what was said about the nature of his contacts with Russians.

3.  In the weeks preceding the 2016 Republican National Convention, you and other Trump campaign advisers-including Mr. Papadopoulos-reportedly attended a dinner at the Capitol Hill Club in Washington, DC.[14] According to reports, Mr. Papadopoulos “sat at the elbow of one of Trump’s top campaign advisers, then-Sen. Jeff Sessions.”[15]

• During that dinner, did Mr. Papadopoulos discuss his Russian connections, the possibility of arranging “a meeting between then-candidate Trump and President Putin,” the possibility of arranging a meeting between the Trump campaign and the Russian leadership, or “U.S.-Russia ties under President Trump”? If so, please describe the content of that conversation, including who discussed these issues with Mr. Papadopoulos, and describe any comments that you made.

4.  On January 10, 2017, when I referenced reports of a “continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump’s surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government,” you replied, “Senator Franken, I’m not aware of any of those activities.”

• Did you fail to mention Mr. Papadopoulos’s Russian contacts because you did not remember hearing Mr. Papadopoulos describe his “connections that could help arrange a meeting between then-candidate Trump and President Putin”?
• Did you fail to mention Mr. Papadopoulos’s Russian contacts because you did not view Mr. Papadopoulos as a “Trump[] surrogate,” and therefore believe that his “connections that could help arrange a meeting between then-candidate Trump and President Putin” did not qualify as a “continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump’s surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government”? If so, please describe how you would characterize Mr. Papadopoulos’s Russian contacts.

5.  Following your confirmation hearing, Senator Leahy asked you the following question, in writing: “Several of the President-Elect’s nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?” You answered, “[n]o.”

• Did you fail to mention Mr. Papadopoulos because you did not remember hearing Mr. Papadopoulos describe his “connections that could help arrange a meeting between then-candidate Trump and President Putin”?

• Did you fail to mention Mr. Papadopoulos because you did not believe that Mr. Papadopoulos’s “connections that could help arrange a meeting between then-candidate Trump and President Putin” did not qualify him as “anyone connected to any part of the Russian government” within the meaning of Senator Leahy’s question? If so, why?

• Did you fail to mention Mr. Papadopoulos because you understood Senator Leahy’s question to ask only whether you had been in contact with Russians?

• Did you fail to mention Mr. Papadopoulos because you did not believe that Mr. Papadopoulos’s discussions with his “connections that could help arrange a meeting between then-candidate Trump and President Putin” did not qualify as being “about the 2016 election”?
• Please describe why you failed to mention Mr. Papadopoulos in response to Senator Leahy’s question.

6.  In your testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on October 18, 2017, you recounted our exchange during your confirmation hearing in January. You stated that when I referenced reports of a “continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump’s surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government,” that you were “taken aback by this dramatic statement that I’d never heard before and knew nothing about.”

• Was your testimony meant to convey that at the time of your confirmation hearing in January, you had “never heard before” the CNN report, published earlier that day, that I read aloud to you?

• Was your testimony meant to convey that at the time of your confirmation hearing in January, you “knew nothing about” a “continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump’s surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government”? If so, why, in your view, did Mr. Papadopoulos’s “connections that could help arrange a meeting between then-candidate Trump and President Putin” not serve as evidence of a “continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump’s surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government”?
• Please describe why you failed to mention Mr. Papadopoulos’s “connections that could help arrange a meeting between then-candidate Trump and President Putin.”

7.  In your testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on October 18, 2017, you said that “a continuing exchange of information between Trump’s surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government…did not happen, at least to my knowledge, and not with me.”

• Did you assert that “a continuing exchange of information between Trump’s surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government…did not happen” because you did not remember hearing Mr. Papadopoulos describe his “connections that could help arrange a meeting between then-candidate Trump and President Putin”?

• Did you assert that “a continuing exchange of information between Trump’s surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government…did not happen” because, in your view, Mr. Papadopoulos’s “connections that could help arrange a meeting between then-candidate Trump and President Putin” did not qualify as a “continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump’s surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government”? If so, please describe how you would characterize Mr. Papadopoulos’s Russian contacts.
• Please describe why you failed to mention Mr. Papadopoulos’s “connections that could help arrange a meeting between then-candidate Trump and President Putin.”

8.  In your testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on October 18, 2017, you said, regarding reports of a “continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump’s surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government,” “I’m not aware of those activities. And I wasn’t, and am not. I don’t believe they occurred.”

• In light of Mr. Papadopoulos’s “connections that could help arrange a meeting between then-candidate Trump and President Putin,” why did you assert that you don’t believe that a “continuing exchange of information between Trump’s surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government” occurred?

• Did you forget that Mr. Papadopoulos mentioned his “connections that could help arrange a meeting between then-candidate Trump and President Putin” at the March 31, 2016 Trump campaign national security meeting?

• Did Mr. Papadopoulos’s “connections that could help arrange a meeting between then-candidate Trump and President Putin” not, in your view, qualify as a “continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump’s surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government”? If not, why?

• According to reports, Mr. Papadopoulos “was in regular contact with the Trump campaign’s most senior officials and held himself out as a Trump surrogate as he traveled the world to meet with foreign officials and reporters.”[16] Did you decline to mention Mr. Papadopoulos’s “connections that could help arrange a meeting between then-candidate Trump and President Putin” because, in your view, Mr. Papadopoulos not qualify as a “Trump surrogate”? If not, why?

• As explained in the recently unsealed court documents, “over a period of months, [Mr.] Papadopoulos repeatedly sought to use [his contact’s] Russian connections in an effort to arrange a meeting between the Campaign and Russian government officials.” Did you decline to mention Mr. Papadopoulos’s “connections that could help arrange a meeting between then-candidate Trump and President Putin” because you did not view Mr. Papadopoulos as an “intermediar[y] for the Russian government”? If so, please describe how Mr. Papadopoulos’s offer to facilitate “a meeting between then-candidate Trump and President Putin” does not qualify him as an “intermediar[y] for the Russian government.”

• If you believe that Mr. Papadopoulos’s offer to facilitate “a meeting between then-candidate Trump and President Putin” does qualify him as an “intermediar[y] for the Russian government,” did you decline to mention Mr. Papadopoulos’s offer to facilitate a meeting because you do not believe that Mr. Papadopoulos’s repeated efforts-both in person and via emails to high-ranking campaign officials-to “use [his contact’s] Russian connections in an effort to arrange a meeting between the Campaign and Russian government officials” did not qualify as a “continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump’s surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government”? If not, why?
• Please describe why you failed to mention Mr. Papadopoulos’s “connections that could help arrange a meeting between then-candidate Trump and President Putin.”

9.  During the March 2, 2017, press conference at which you announced your recusal from “any existing or future investigations of any matter relating in any way to the campaigns for President of the United States,” you were asked about the answer you provided to my January question referencing a “continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump’s surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.” You stated, “[i]n retrospect, I should have slowed down and said, ‘But I did meet one Russian official a couple of times, and that would be the ambassador.'”

• In your responses to any of the above questions, did you provide answers that, in retrospect, should have been different had you more time to collect your thoughts? If so, please explain which questions you would have answered differently, how you would have answered them differently, and why your initial answers were incorrect.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

View the article here.