Key moments from the Sessions confirmation hearing

Jeff Sessions’ confirmation hearing for attorney general got off to a heated and dramatic start, with the senator making an unprompted move to address decades-old charges of racism as reams of protesters were escorted out of the historic Kennedy Caucus Room at the Capitol.

Here is POLITICO’s running list of key moments from Sessions’ hearing before the Judiciary Committee:


Sessions skeptical on consent decrees

Near the end of his confirmation hearing, Sessions cast skepticism on the merits of consent decrees – legal mechanisms used more than dozen times by the Obama Justice Department to settle lawsuits prompted by allegations of unlawful use of force by local police.

Prompted by questioning from Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Sessions noted that current consent decrees remain enforced and that such agreements aren’t “necessarily a bad thing.” But Sessions also warned that legal action from the Justice Department against local police departments are sometimes not justified, undermine respect for law enforcement and can sap morale.

As for current consent decrees, “I just wouldn’t commit that there definitely wouldn’t be changes,” he said.

“It’s a difficult thing for a city to be sued by the Department of Justice and to be told your police department is systematically failing to serve the people of the state or city,” Sessions said. “So they feel forced to agree to a consent decree to remove that stigma.”

Blumenthal raises the Ku Klux Klan

As Sen. Richard Blumenthal pressed Sessions about awards he received but didn’t report on a committee questionnaire, the Connecticut Democrat asked a surprisingly provocative question: “Are there any other awards from groups that have similar kinds of ideological negative views of immigrants or of African-Americans or Muslims or others including awards that you may have received from the Ku Klux Klan?”

“Well, I wouldn’t receive it from Henry Hays, I’ll tell you that. He no longer exists,” Sessions shot back, referring to a Klansman who got the death penalty in a case Sessions helped pursue. “No, I wouldn’t accept an award from the Klan.”

Sessions weighs in on marijuana

Two protesters dressed as Ku Klux Klan members bellowed: “Jefferson Beauregard, here we are. We're here for you.” | M. Scott Mahaskey/POLITICO

Despite the presence of several pro-marijuana legalization protesters in the audience, that issue did not come up until mid-afternoon, when Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) asked Sessions if he would use the federal system to prosecute people using pot or pot derivatives legal under state law.

“I won’t commit to never enforcing federal law but, absolutely, it’s a problem of resources for the federal government,” Sessions said. He said some guidelines set by the Obama administration on when to bring such cases are “truly valuable, but fundamentally the criticism I think was legitimate is [that] they may not have been followed."

Ultimately, Sessions wouldn’t say how he’d handle marijuana cases beyond saying he’d use “good judgment.”

Leahy invokes ‘Access Hollywood' tape

During afternoon questioning, Leahy went there — raising the controversial “Access Hollywood” tape where Trump was captured bragging about sexually assaulting women. Sessions, Trump’s most enthusiastic supporter in the Senate, subsequently told the Weekly Standard during the political furor that he did not “characterize that as sexual assault.” The senator later said the publication took him out of context.

But Democrats weren’t willing to let Sessions off the hook just yet.

“Is grabbing a woman by her genitals without her consent sexual assault?” Leahy asked Sessions.

The nominee responded: “Clearly, it would be.”

Franken scores a hit

The most contentious questioning of Sessions came from Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) who essentially accused Sessions of lying about the number of the desegregation and civil rights cases he brought as the U.S. Attorney in Mobile and about the extent of his involvement in those cases. | Getty

At a generally genial hearing, the most contentious questioning of Sessions came from Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) who essentially accused Sessions of lying about the number of the desegregation and civil rights cases he brought as the U.S. attorney in Mobile and about the extent of his involvement in those cases.

“It’s fair to expect sitting before us you’re not going to misrepresent your own record,” Franken said he zeroed in on Sessions statement to National Review in 2009 that he “filed 20 or 30 civil-rights cases to desegregate schools and political organizations and county commissions when I was a United States attorney.”

Sessions conceded that statement appeared to be an exaggeration.

“The records don’t show there were 20 or 30 actually-filed cases,” the attorney general nominee said, suggesting that he may have misremembered because some cases “involved multiple parties and multiple defendants”

Pressed by Franken, Sessions did not provide a new tally, simply saying: “The number would be less than that that we’ve looked at.” He said it’s “extraordinarily difficult” to get a clear number from court records.

Sessions on waterboarding: ‘Absolutely improper and illegal’

As a senator, Sessions has defended waterboarding, arguing that the use of the tactic has been limited and effective. “The first thing we know is it worked. I hate to say, it worked,” Sessions said in a 2008 floor speech. But when questioned Tuesday whether waterboarding constitutes torture, Sessions was clear in how he would view the interrogation tactic as attorney general.

“Congress has taken an action now that makes it absolutely improper and illegal to use waterboarding … or any other form of torture by our military and by our other departments and agencies,” Sessions told the Judiciary Committee. Trump made it a campaign pledge to revive waterboarding, but has signaled since his election that he may reconsider his view.

Leahy, Sessions spar over VAWA

One of the most contentious moments between Sessions and a fellow senator came when Leahy aggressively questioned the nominee over his vote against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act in 2013. That version, which was ultimately signed into law, broadened key protections to LGBT individuals, immigrants and women on tribal lands.

“Let’s deal with the facts,” a stern Leahy began. “Why did you vote against expanding protections?”

Sessions argued that his chief concern against the 2013 VAWA were the tribal courts provisions, arguing that non-Native Americans who committed crime on tribal lands have not been effectively prosecuted. Just moments earlier, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) had tried to give Sessions an out, noting that he’s voted for different versions of VAWA in the past and supported its overall goal of reducing domestic violence.

Clinton probe recusal

Attorney General nominee Jeff Sessions said at his confirmation hearing Tuesday that if confirmed he plans to recuse himself from all issues related to any investigation into Hillary Clinton. He said his rhetoric on the issue during the campaign could lead people to doubt he’d be fair in considering the matter. “I do believe that that could place my objectivity in question… I believe the proper thing for me to do would be for me to recuse myself from any questions regarding those kinds of investigations,” Sessions declared.

The attorney general also appeared to offer an implicit rebuke to President-elect Donald Trump, who declared during a debate that he would instruct his attorney general to appoint a special prosecutor who would put Clinton “in jail” over her handling of the email matter. Sessions said, in essence, that he would not accept such an instruction and would instead formally recuse himself.

“I believe that would be the best approach for the country because we can never have a political dispute turn into a criminal dispute,” Sessions said. “This country does not punish its political enemies. What this country ensures is that no one is above the law.”

While Trump pledged to recuse on the Clinton email issue, Sessions later declined to commit to similar treatment of inquiries that are reportedly ongoing into Trump advisers’ connections to Russia.

Sessions said he’d decided to bow out of the Clinton issue because he spoke about it publicly during the campaign, but he didn’t make statements about any allegations about the Trump camp’s ties to Russia. “I don’t think I’ve made any comment on this issue,” he said in response to questions from Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) “I would review it and try to do the right thing as to whether or not it would stay within the jurisdiction of the attorney general or not.”

'Damnably false' accusations of racism

Veering from his prepared remarks, Sessions directly addressed allegations of racism that have dogged him for three decades — defiantly declaring those accusations "damnably false charges.”

Those allegations — which sank his bid for the federal judiciary in 1986 — ran the gamut from making racially improper comments to not protecting voting accessibility for black voters in a high profile voter fraud case. He was also accused of being sympathetic to the Ku Klux Klan.

“These are damnably false charges,” Sessions told the Judiciary Committee on Tuesday. “The voter fraud case my office prosecuted as in response to pleas from African-American, incumbent elected officials.”

"The caricature of me in 1986 was not correct," Sessions said, his voice rising. "I do not harbor the kind of animosity and race-based discrimination ideas that I was accused of. I did not."



Protests mar the early going

Demonstrators, particularly those from the antiwar group Code Pink, flooded the confirmation hearing and immediately began loud interruptions — starting with two protesters dressed as Ku Klux Klan members, who bellowed: “Jefferson Beauregard, here we are. We're here for you.”

And the demonstrations didn’t let up from there. As Sessions began delivering his opening remarks, another protester started screaming: “Sessions is a racist, he’s illegitimate!” Even before Sessions finished his comments, at least a half-dozen protesters had been escorted out by Capitol Police.

What about that Muslim ban?

Sessions said he does not favor banning Muslim immigrants from the U.S., as Trump initially proposed.

“I believe the president-elect subsequent to that statement made clear he believes the focus should be on individuals coming from countries that have a history of terrorism,” the Alabama senator said.

Sessions said that when he voted against a 2015 Senate resolution urging no religious test in the immigration process, he was concerned the measure suggested that one’s religious views could never be taken into account by the government, no matter how radical those views.

“I’m hoping that you’ll be different than your predecessors in response to oversight questions,” Senate Judiciary Committee Chuck Grassley said. | M.Scott Mahaskey/POLITICO

“I hope we can keep people out of the country who wants to kill everybody because of their religion,” Sessions said, while making clear he does not believe most Muslims hold such views.

Grassley gets his digs in against DOJ



At a hearing preoccupied with politically-charged issues like the Ku Klux Klan, abortion and the use of criminal law as a political weapon, Senate Judiciary Committee Chuck Grassley showed where his passions lie: irritation over the Justice Department's sluggish answers to his mail inquiries. He was at his most emphatic Tuesday when he pressed Sessions to be more responsive to queries from Congress.

“I’m hoping that you’ll be different than your predecessors in response to oversight questions,” a clearly embittered Grassley said, holding in the air “a whole bunch of letters” that Justice officials never addressed. “I hope you would go to great lengths to make sure that these are answered.”

Grassley also expressed bitterness that his questions were often ignored when Republicans were in the minority and expected Sessions to treat the new ranking Democrat better.

“I want her questions answered just like you’d answer mine,” the chairman said.