WASHINGTON, D.C. – During a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing today, U.S. Senator Angus King (I-Maine) pressed Attorney General Jeff Sessions on his repeated refusal to answer questions from members of the Committee about the ongoing investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election.

            “You testified a few minutes ago – I’m not able to invoke Executive Privilege – that’s up to the President. Has the President invoked Executive Privilege in the case of your testimony here today,” Senator King asked.

            “He has not,” the Attorney General responded, to which Senator King asked: “Then what is the basis of your refusal to answer these questions? […] You said you don’t have the power to assert the power of Executive Privilege. What is the legal basis for your refusal to answer these questions?”

The Attorney General responded that he was protecting the right of the President to assert Executive Privilege if he chooses.

“You can’t have it both ways,” Senator King said, who then went on to point out that Attorney General Sessions had previously testified about a conversation he had with the President. “You’re being selective.”

Additionally, Senator King was able to get Attorney General Sessions to confirm that he believed Russia did interfere in the 2016 presidential election and, in response to another question from Senator King, the Attorney General said that he did not seek a briefing on Russia’s interference in the election, despite his nomination as Attorney General and the Intelligence Community’s unanimous conclusion that Russia did indeed interfere.

            “You never asked for a briefing or attended a briefing or read the Intelligence reports,” Senator King asked. “I’m not talking about the campaign. I’m talking about what the Russians did. You received no briefing on the Russian active measures in connection with the 2016 election?”

            “No, I don’t believe I ever did,” the Attorney General responded.

During a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing last week, Senator King also grilled the nation’s top Intelligence Community officials on their refusal to also answer questions before the Committee, despite having no legal standing to do so – as the Director of National Intelligence admitted.

A transcript of Senator King’s questioning of Attorney General Sessions is below. The exchange can also be watched HERE.

+++

Senator King: Mr. Attorney general, thank you for joining us today, I respect your willingness to be here. You testified a few minutes ago, I'm not able to invoke executive privilege, that's up to the President. Has the President invoked executive privilege in the case of your testimony here today? 

Attorney General Session: He has not. 

King: Then what is the basis of your refusal to answer these questions? 

Sessions: Senator King, the President has a Constitutional -- 

King: I understand that, but the president hasn't asserted it. You said you don't have the power to assert the power of executive privilege. What is the legal basis for your refusal to answer these questions? 

Sessions: I'm protecting the right of the president to assert it if he chooses. There may be other privileges that could apply in this circumstance. 

King: I don’t understand how you can't have it both ways. The president can't not assert it. You’ve testified that only the president can assert it. And yet, I just don't understand the legal basis for your refusal to answer. 

Sessions: What we try to do – I think most cabinet officials, others that you questioned recently, officials before the committee, protect the President's right to do so. If it comes to a point where the issue is clear and there's a dispute about it, at some point the President will either assert the privilege or not or some other privilege would be asserted. But at this point I believe it's premature for me to, it would be premature for me to deny the President a full and intelligent choice about executive privilege. That's not necessary at this point. 

King: You testified a few minutes ago, quote, we were asked for our opinion. Who asked for your opinion? 

Sessions: You mean -- 

King: You testified we were asked for our opinion. 

Sessions: My understanding is – I believe I'm correct in saying the president has said so, that –  

King: He didn't ask you directly? 

Sessions: I thought you were asking about the privilege. You want to go back. 

King: No, I'm sorry. You said, quote, we were asked for our opinion, you and Mr. Rosenstein. 

Sessions: I believe that was appropriate for me to say that because I think the President –  

King: I'm just asking who asked you for your opinion? Who asked you for your opinion. 

Sessions: Right. The President asked far our opinion. 

King: So you just testified as to the content of a communication of the President.

Sessions: That is correct, but I believe he's already revealed that. I believe I'm correct in saying that. That's why I indicated that when I answered that question. If he hasn't and I'm in error, I would have constricted his Constitutional right of privilege, you're correct. 

King: You're being selective about the use –  

Sessions: No, I'm not intentionally. I'm doing so only because I believe he made that – he's been public about that. 

King: In any of your discussions with the President about the firing of James Comey, did the question of the Russia investigation ever come up? 

Sessions: I cannot answer that because it was a communication by the President, if any such occurred, it would be a communication that he has not waived. 

King: But he has not asserted executive privilege. 

Sessions: He has not asserted executive privilege. 

King: Do you believe the Russians interfered with the 2016 election? 

Sessions: I believe so. The intelligence community seems to be united in that. But I have to tell you, Senator King, I know nothing but what I read in the paper. I've never received any detailed briefing on how a hacking occurred or how information was alleged to have influenced the campaign. 

King: Between the election, there was a memorandum from the intelligence community on October 9th that detailed what the Russians were doing. After the election, before the inauguration, you never sought any information about this rather dramatic attack on our country? 

Sessions: No. 

King: You never asked for a briefing or attended a briefing or read the intelligence reports? 

Sessions: You might have been very critical of me if I as an active part of the campaign was seeking intelligence related to something that might be relevant to the campaign. I'm not sure that would have been–  

King: I'm not talking about the campaign. I'm talking about what the Russians did. You received no briefing on the Russian active measures in connection with the 2016 election? 

Sessions: No, I don't believe I ever did. 

King: Let's go to your letter of May 9th. You said, “Based upon my evaluation and for the reasons expressed by the Deputy.” Was that a written evaluation? 

Sessions: My evaluation was an evaluation that had been going on for some months. 

King: Is there a written evaluation? 

Sessions: I did not make one. I think you could classify Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein's memorandum as an evaluation, one that – and he was the direct supervisor of the FBI Director. 

King: And his evaluation was based 100% on the handling of the Hillary Clinton e-mails, is that correct? 

Sessions: And a number of other matters, as I recall. But he did explicitly lay out the errors that he thought had been made in that process by the Director of the FBI. I thought they were cogent and accurate and far more significant than I think a lot of people have understood. 

King: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

###