Jeff Sessions withstood a marathon grilling before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday with his chief goal mostly accomplished: Do no harm.

The conservative Alabama senator and Donald Trump’s pick to serve as attorney general came prepared to rebut accusations of racism, address criticisms of his policy positions and discuss controversial views and even tweets from President-elect Donald Trump.


But Sessions emerged largely unscathed from the 10½ hours of testimony, with Democrats failing to land crippling political blows against one of the slew of Trump nominees they’ve vowed to fight. Sessions and his team know he won’t garner much support from Democrats, much less those who sit on the Judiciary Committee — but Sessions needs only 51 votes, and nothing from his hearing suggests he won’t get there.

Here are POLITICO’s key takeaways from Sessions’ appearance before the Judiciary Committee:

Potentially “ugly” hearing becomes more of a love-fest

The news coverage leading up to Sessions’ hearing suggested he was going to take a pounding over allegations of racism that torpedoed his 1986 bid for a federal judgeship, but the Tuesday session proved relatively tame.

Trump’s selection of Sessions seemed to reflect a confidence that he’d enjoy some deference from his colleagues because of his Senate service, and that proved to be true. Several Democratic senators noted the awkwardness.

“I will do my best to be nice to you,” Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii said.

“That won’t be hard for you,” Sessions replied.

“Thank you very much,” Hirono countered.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut started out his questioning with a note of anguish.

“This experience for us is a difficult one not only because you're a colleague, but I consider you to be a friend and someone who is well liked and respected in this body. … I know if you were sitting here you’d be pretty tough on me, maybe tougher than I’ll be on you,” Blumenthal said.

The questioning was not always milquetoast, but most of the drama came from protesters calling Sessions a racist and being wrestled out of the gallery by Capitol Police. Moments of confrontation between the questioners and the nominee were few and far between.

Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) pushed Sessions pretty hard over claims he’d exaggerated his work on civil rights cases, a point that prompted Sessions to concede the actual number of cases was much lower. And Blumenthal asked Sessions whether he would accept an award from the Ku Klux Klan. (He said no.)

But, by and large, the questioning was policy-focused and a tad dull. Sometimes it seemed that Republicans were bringing up the most racially charged allegations against Sessions just to debunk them.

Some Republicans seemed a little surprised that Democrats had not staged a reprise of the 1986 hearings, at which Sessions was accused of demeaning an African-American colleague and persecuting voting rights activists.

The absence of those claims drew grudging thanks from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), someone who rarely has nice things to say about Democrats.

“At the beginning of this hearing I had concerns that it would turn ugly with accusations that don't belong in this hearing. And I think my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle have largely restrained from going down that road,” Cruz said. “I think that was the right decision to make.”

Sessions: Never mind my campaign rhetoric

When Sessions was asked about some of the more provocative things he’s said in recent months while he was acting as a top surrogate for and adviser to candidate Donald Trump, the Alabama senator had a ready-made response: Don’t take that campaign trail talk seriously.

“It was a highly contentious campaign. I, like a lot of people, made comments about the issues in that campaign,” Sessions said as he discussed his call for a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton and said it would prompt him to recuse himself from any decision related to her email probe.

When pressed by Blumenthal on whether a special prosecutor would be appropriate to take over a pending investigation into Deutsche Bank, which has extended large loans to President-elect Trump, or over constitutional questions raised by his foreign ties, or over possible violations of ethics laws by Trump family members who may serve as White House advisers, Sessions again urged people not to put too much stock in his election-season remarks.

“I will suggest that during the campaign, sometimes we get excited. But as attorney general, you have to follow the law. You have to be consistent — you have to be honorable in your decision making,” Sessions said.

The nominee also downplayed the repeated “Lock her up!” chants that broke out at Trump rallies, as people urged that Clinton be thrown in jail. While many Democrats were outraged at the refrain, Sessions suggested Tuesday it was largely tongue-in-cheek.

Asked whether he joined in, Sessions said: “No, I did not.” He added, with a chuckle: “I heard it at rallies and so forth, I think, sometimes humorously done.”

Sessions’ hiccups

It wasn’t all smooth sailing for Sessions, however. Franken, the most dogged questioner among Democrats during the hearing, landed the cleanest blow against the nominee when Sessions was forced to admit that the number of desegregation lawsuits he filed in Alabama as a prosecutor was inflated.

Sessions told National Review in 2009 that he had filed “20 or 30” cases that would desegregate schools, political organizations and county commissions as a federal prosecutor. But under grilling from Franken, the nominee acknowledged it’s “important for us to be accurate” and conceded that no records back up his contention. “Some of the cases involve multiple defendants and multiple parties like a school board and a county commission being sued for racial discrimination or things of that nature, but the number would be less than that, as we've looked at,” Sessions told Franken.

The nominee also stumbled a bit when pressed by Democrats on Trump’s controversial “Access Hollywood” tape episode. Sessions unequivocally responded that yes, grabbing a woman by her genitals without her consent would constitute sex assault. But when asked to clarify why he initially told The Weekly Standard that he would not characterize what Trump boasted about as sexual assault, Sessions had no clear answer.

“Well, the confusion about the question was a hypothetical question,” he tried to explain. “And it related to what was said on the tape. I did not remember at the time whether that was suggested to be an unaccepted, unwanted, which certainly would meet the definition.”

Later in the hearing, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) began quizzing Sessions on the topic of religion. One query in particular: Does a secular person have just as good a claim to understanding the truth as someone who practices religion?

Sessions, a deeply devout Methodist, responded: “Well, I’m not sure.” But Whitehouse chose to move on and not follow up on Sessions’ head-scratching answer.

Sessions downplays his personal views

Because most Democrats declined to prosecute Sessions’ character and instead went after his policy record, the attorney general nominee could easily dodge questions about his conservative stances by pledging that he would enforce settled law, not make it.

That was the case when Sessions, who opposes same-sex marriage, was pressed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) on the issue. Sessions swiftly responded that a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling in 2015, Obergefell v. Hodges, “established the definition of marriage … and I will follow that decision.” Ditto with waterboarding: Sessions, who has said in the past that he believed the controversial interrogation tactic was effective, stressed to the committee that “Congress has taken an action now that makes it absolutely improper and illegal to use waterboarding.”

And while Sessions told the committee that he’s a “pro-life advocate,” he also testified: “Roe v. Wade is firmly ensconced as the law of the land, and I don’t know if we would see change in that.”

But at times, the loquacious Sessions couldn’t help himself and began detailing his personal stances on hot-button topics. As Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) asked a mildly worded question on the economic benefits of immigration, Sessions launched a critique of an influx of legal immigrants to the United States.

“I do think that if you bring in a larger flow of [immigrants] than we have jobs for, it does impact adversely” wages and job prospects for U.S. citizens, Sessions said. “As a nation we should evaluate immigration … it has to be the people’s interests first.”

And on the issue of so-called consent decrees, Sessions cast skepticism on the merits of the legal mechanism used by the Obama administration to reach a settlement with local law enforcement agencies over their policing practices.