Krauthammer: Sessions’ Actions Give ‘Impression There Was Something Improper,’ But ‘There’s No Evidence Of It’

On Thursday’s broadcast of the Fox News Channel’s “Special Report,” columnist Charles Krauthammer stated that there isn’t “a scintilla of evidence of improper contacts” by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and Sessions gave a “plausible excuse” earlier that day, but Sessions not correcting the record of his Judiciary Committee testimony “gives the impression there was something improper,” and that if another shoe drops, “he’s gone.”

Krauthammer said, “It’s a complicated case. Because there’s certainly a plausible excuse for the Sessions actions, the ones he presented today. … But the problem with all of this is, that he’s had several weeks since that incident. If that’s all it was, an innocent mistake, and he forgot about the meeting, he should simply have gone to the committee, written them, and said, as he said in his press conference, I should have added, yes, I had two meetings. He never did. So why? To me, it reminds me of the Flynn case. This is a cover-up in search of a crime. what would have been the big deal about having a meeting with the Russian ambassador? Now, the other thing that makes it a little bit fishy is, he’s an old pro. Does he really think the Russian ambassador schedules a meeting with him in September because Sessions is a foreign policy giant and a strategic thinker? Or was the meeting because he’s the first senator, and very close to — first senator to support Trump, and wants to learn about the Trump campaign? So, this — I can — I think the recusal was absolutely necessary, but — and if there isn’t another shoe that drops, he’s okay. But if another shoe does, he’s gone.”

He added, “[T]here is not a scintilla of evidence of improper contacts, or collaboration, or working with the Russians, or doing something that they shouldn’t have done. So, that leaves you with the question that’s at the heart of this, why would they not — why would Sessions, — why did Flynn never admit to the meeting that he had and the discussion of sanctions? There’s nothing wrong with that. And now with Sessions, why didn’t he simply correct the record? Surely, he said he had two aides in the meeting in his office. So, the aides must have told him, or his scheduler, yes, you did have a meeting. Why didn’t he just admit it? What’s the problem? And that’s the question of the root of all this. It gives the impression there was something improper, and yet there’s no evidence of it.”

Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett