Sens. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., left, and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., talk during a recent judiciary hearing. Photo courtesy of Leahy’s office
Early this week, Sessions submitted replies to 37 written questions Leahy put to him while deciding whether to support his longtime Senate colleague’s nomination.
Leahy’s inquiries came after he offered a series of sharply critical questions during Sessions’ confirmation hearings earlier this month. In his detailed follow-ups, Leahy was clearly looking for promises from Sessions should he become the nation’s top law enforcement official.
In his responses, Sessions promised to enforce a number of Leahy laws that he had opposed in the Senate, including the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act and the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
Sessions also promised to continue administering the two dozen victim assistance grant programs set up through VAWA, even though President Donald Trump’s budget blueprint calls for cutting the 24 programs.
More often than not, however, Sessions equivocated in his answers.
He declared support for diversionary drug courts while making clear that enforcement of current drug laws was important.
“Treatment has not proven universally successful,” Sessions wrote.
He said he supports First Amendment protections of journalists while making clear that his Justice Department would consider issuing subpoenas to reporters when considered necessary.
Asked if his Justice Department would work to overturn Roe v. Wade — which protects women’s access to abortions — Sessions answered that “asking the Supreme Court to overturn its own precedent would be a very serious matter that would only come as the result of careful, case-specific analysis.”
A number of Leahy’s questions asked Sessions to explain his relationships with various groups deemed hateful by the Southern Poverty Law Center. In his responses, Sessions was consistently vague, writing, “I have not and will not associate myself with any racially insensitive or discriminatory remarks made by anyone.”
Leahy also probed regarding Sessions’ loyalty to Trump.
Asked if he would intervene in or shut down a current Department of Justice investigation regarding Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election on Trump’s behalf, Sessions ruled nothing out.
“I am unable to comment on the status of any such investigations except to say that I believe all investigations by the Department of Justice must be initiated and conducted in a fair, professional, and impartial manner, without regard to politics or outside influence,” he wrote.
Sessions — who was the first U.S. senator to endorse Trump and campaigned for him frequently — made no firm pledges to recuse himself from investigations into Trump’s potential conflicts of interests. Legal scholars — including former President George W. Bush’s ethics lawyer — have suggested Trump’s business connections across the world put him in violation of the emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Sessions said he has “not devoted any study” to potential conflicts, including Trump Tower in New York City, where the largest tenant making rent payments is China’s state-owned Industrial and Commercial Bank.
“I am not aware of the details of any of the arrangements in the case of Trump Tower and the lease in question,” Sessions wrote. “Therefore, I am not in a position to offer even an informal opinion.”
Leahy also asked Sessions who would have grounds to bring a case regarding the emoluments clause.
“I am not aware of any cases in which the Foreign Emoluments Clause has presented a justiciable issue, and I am unable to answer that question in the abstract,” Sessions said.
Because a sitting president has never faced a legal challenge under the emoluments clause — which declares that no officeholder can accept any “present, emolument, office or title” from a foreign state — it is unclear who has grounds to sue the commander in chief.
The Alabama senator suggested he would be guided by the Supreme Court decision of Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, which made it harder for citizens to sue the federal government. The grounds for taking legal action against the government were defined as concrete injury as opposed to a “conjectural or hypothetical one.”
A group of constitutional scholars — including former Vermont Law School professor Zephyr Teachout — filed suit Monday alleging Trump is in violation of the emoluments clause.
The suit could be tossed out, however, if a judge decides the plaintiffs haven’t properly demonstrated they would suffer directly if Trump benefits financially from foreign countries.
In his biggest break from Trump policies, Sessions said he would advise against fulfilling a campaign promise to target the families of terrorists.
“Intentionally killing the family members of a terrorist would violate any number of laws, including the Geneva Conventions as well as U.S. statutes,” Leahy wrote in his questions.
“Intentionally targeting and killing family members of terrorists would not be a legal option,” Sessions responded.
After Leahy reviewed Sessions’ answers, he resubmitted a number of his questions, accusing the Alabama senator of failing to fully articulate his philosophy on many issues.
“Sen. Sessions’ failure to provide direct answers to my written questions raises serious concerns that he would not be an independent attorney general,” Leahy said. “The Judiciary Committee must have answers before we consider this important nomination.”
On Tuesday the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously delayed its vote on Sessions’ nomination by one week to allow for further review of his supplemental answers. Besides Leahy’s two sets of written questions, a handful of other Democrats on the committee submitted follow-ups to Sessions after his formal hearings.
Leahy’s second list of supplemental questions is available here.
The post Leahy’s queries yield some assurances from Sessions appeared first on VTDigger.