Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The FBI Misleads AG Jeff Sessions
“As a United States Senator, the Attorney General met hundreds — if not thousands — of foreign dignitaries and their staff. In filling out the SF-86 form, the Attorney General’s staff consulted with those familiar with the process, as well as the FBI investigator handling the background check, and was instructed not to list meetings with foreign dignitaries and their staff connected with his Senate activities,” Justice Department Deputy Director of Public Affairs Ian Prior said in a statement Wednesday evening.
Sessions did reportedly have a list of a year’s worth of meetings, but was told by an FBI employee who helped him fill out the form to remove any meetings he had pertaining to his role as senator.
I wonder what Jeff Sessions will have to say at his meeting with the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday.
Published in Politics
Sessions should rescind his recusal.
It’s probably too much to hope that he shows up dangling a cat o’ nine.
Considering the FBI agent who advised him wrongly works for sessions; He should fire his little behind for gross incompetence since I assume he was supposed to be an Expert in that area.
It’s very likely that the advice was correct or ambiguous and not important. Only the media can make lies into news.
I haven’t trusted the FBI for a while now.
The pinnacle of competence and non-partisanship.
Uff… the SF-86. Over 100 pages of questions. The fact that a US Senator and Attorney General needs an expert to help him fill out this form tells you all you need to know about it. Nobody ever helped me, btw.
No, I have never received such guidance either.
However, if the Senate Intelligence Committee wants to make this into something to question, then they are dishonest as sin because what Sessions was being advised is that he did not need to list foreign contacts that occurred during his capacity as a US Senator. In other words, you don’t have to list foreign contact made during the course of duty.
Let’s say that you are stationed in Iraq and you were in charge of training Iraqi soldiers. You would not have list every single Iraqi soldier that you personally spoke with in the course of that evolution. However, if you went to his house, befriended his family, and maintained a “close, personal relationship” with the individual and his family, you would have to disclose that. Also, in regards to foreign travel, you would not have to list Iraq as foreign travel because it was conducted during your capacity as active duty military personnel. But if you took leave during that time to Dubai, then you would have to list that. Every single Senator sitting on that committee knows that and should have the integrity not to give Sessions too much guff over it. But we are talking about Democrats here, so of course they want to Sessions drawn and quartered.
You have given me a smile @robertmcreynolds ; I’m giving you an A+.
I was watching this OP to see if anyone who commented on what Mr. Sessions did or did not list on the SF86 had ever actually read or completed the SF86. Obviously, some have. :))
I agree, Robert. We don’t even know yet if the meeting will be open or closed, for pete’s sake. I hope it’s public, and I hope AG Sessions will rip them up, chastise them for their irresponsible behavior, and revoke his recusal. All that would be very nice.
He won’t.
I hate it so much.
According to CNN, it’s going to be public.
Hey, they might be right this time. There’s no law against it.
Thanks, Percival. I won’t be home to see it; maybe it will be on the radio. Then again, maybe I’ll just want the highlights (or lowlights, as the case may be).
That a high percentage of Rico commentators have indicated that they have filled out the SF-86 (me too), just indicates the ridiculous number of people that have filed for security clearance. I have heard that there are > 5 million people currently with a security clearance.
Good summary. I think the instructions do indicate that you do not put contacts that are part of your duties for the US government.
In addition, as I am sure that Jeff Sessions had a security clearance as a Senator, foreign trips and contacts had to be reported and updated at the time of occurrence. It would surprise me that when he was moved up to AG that he would have to completely re-do his SF-86. He might have to re-do the interview for an upgrade to his clearance.
I wonder what if any process Trump went through after winning the Presidency?
I would think that Trump’s business dealings and foreign travel would be impossible to completely disclose on the SF-86 without a very well organized staff that had very good records of his entire life for the past seven years.
Well trips in general do not go on the SF86 anyway. What they are looking for is residency and employment. Trips are usually passed to your security office as a heads-up that you are going to travel out of the country. Only on the rare occasion are your trips forbidden because of the clearance you hold. Let’s say you are an analyst that covers the Middle East, you would likely be highly discouraged from going on your trip, and if your trip went to a country that you directly cover, you would likely be advised not to go. Anything that Sessions did under his capacity as Senator on the SFC would not be on his SF86.
I think he will. They may not understand they are being ripped up, but I think he will cleverly make fools of them.
If you can’t watch, I suggest finding the video on C-span or youtube afterwards, because you just know you can trust the presstitutes to distort the reportage to put the worst possible light on his testimony.
My opinion of the Senate has degraded severely since Trump was elected. Jeff Sessions is a great Senator, while people like McCain and Graham have proven themselves unworthy to be members of this body (as well as most Democrats).
Let’s say I decide to run for office (I’d love to whip Lindsey’s *ss in a Republican primary). Would I have to answer questions about why I had personal contact with dozens of Russian officials, most of them government officials? I have done just that, along with my wife.
Would I have to answer questions about how I gave hundreds of dollars to lower level Russian officials to facilitate my goals? Been there, done that. The wife too. I guess that makes us Putin’s pawns . . .
The truth be known, all we did was go over there (Russia) to adopt our three daughters. What you have to do in order to do business in foreign countries is very different from what we do here.
Something as innocent as talking to someone from another country (much less give money) can be blown out of proportion to mean collusion with a foreign adversary. If I ran for office, what I just showed you is how my opponents (including establishment Republicans) would say to take me out.
This “Russian Collusion” witch hunt must end. If I were Trump, I’d fire Mueller and all the people he hired. Tell the Dems and their Republican allies (McCain and Graham) to stuff it. Kill Obamacare, lower taxes, build the wall, and take steps (sorry, Dr. Krauthammer, but we can get rid of 11 million illegals) to remove those among us who have broken immigration law.
Sorry, but I’m damn tired of pressing 1 for English . . .
Actually I may be able to see it! We may be back by 2:00 from shooting practice, so I’ll be raring to go!
I knew there was something sneaky about you and your wife when we first met–ha!
;-) I think we’re all getting tired of the whole thing, Stad.
Where do I donate to your campaign? I would love to see Linsey Grahmnesty’s ass get kicked in a primary.
Sorry @robertmcreynolds, are you saying that it is U.S. government policy that its expert analysts are never allowed to go to the countries they are supposed to be experts of? It would explain a lot….
Not quite in those words. Let’s say you are an analyst covering military capabilities for country X. When there is an official trip to country X where you are allowed to speak with US military personnel who train country X in certain military tactics, then sure the government pays for that analyst to go. But if you are planning a vacation to country X, the government can recommend that you not make that trip. Basically, travel under official capacity is cleared; travel that is for fun or personal is scrutinized and recommendations are made one way or another. However, none of this travel is required for an SF86 from what I can recall. The SF86 is looking for long-term historical data points and not trips or vacations.
Actually I seem to recall all non-government foreign travel within a certain period of time is required to be listed.
A little off topic but in the ballpark: who is responsible for investigating the Special Council, should it become appropriate to do so? Let’s say, hypothetically, that someone leaked information about people who were persons of interest or people who were being investigated–a leak that, if true, could only have come from a handful of people under said Council’s direction? Also, hypothetically, what if there were reports that said Special Council either was employed by a firm that represented Russian banks or had represented them himself. Given the current climate of suspicion, that ought to be enough to begin an investigation. After all, the Russians hacked the election. We have gone through the looking glass, people. Up is down; left is right.
From testimony that I heard Deputy AG Rosenstein give, he would probably be the one to call that; he’s the only one who can fire the Special Council, and only for cause, so I think that would fall to him.
I understand that Trump can fire the Special Counsel or Sessions could. Either way, remove all deputy AGs who won’t do what they are ordered to do. Rosenstein is clearly in on the attempted coup here.