Following Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s press conference Thursday afternoon announcing he’s recusing himself from any investigation into the Russian government and the U.S. election, CBS and MSNBC threw fits that Sessions didn’t go far enough and peddled conspiracy theories that Sessions could still interfere with any federal investigation of Russian officials.
CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley aired his first of many grievances seconds after the press conference ended, upset by how “the news conference was important also for what Jeff Sessions did not say.”
“There have been a number of legislators on Capitol Hill who have called for a special prosecutor in this case. That would take the investigation completely outside of the Justice Department, which, of course, is a department under President Trump's purview. But he did not announce that there would be a special prosecutor,” fretted Pelley.
As if he were concerned that the Department of Justice (DOJ) had been compromised, Pelley added: “He said that he would keep the investigation within the FBI, which is part of the Department of Justice and that he would step aside and not be involved in any decisions regarding that investigation.”
<<< Please support MRC's NewsBusters team with a tax-deductible contribution today. >>>
Over on MSNBC, the outrage was far less composed. Breaking news anchor Brian Williams and chief legal correspondent Ari Melber spent a significant portion of time pushing this conspiracy that Sessions really didn’t fully recuse himself because the DOJ investigations supposedly involve time since the election.
“It is not a recusal from any potential investigations regarding matters after election day. We know that is important cause after election day is when the FBI interviewed the then-national security adviser. After election day is when there have been reports by multiple news organizations, including this one, about these ongoing questions. So this is a significant recusal and a partial one,” Melber explained.
Williams also engaged in the speculation:
So after election day, it becomes the President-Elect. And after that, it becomes an administration and that you are saying is so much of this activity that people are worked up about has happened during the administration. We've already seen the departure of the national security adviser.
With Hardball host Chris Matthews clamoring to jump in, Williams served up this softball of liberal punditry:
Chris, here is what is extraordinary. On top of the departure of a national security adviser 24 days into the presidency, this is probably the earliest recusal of its kind of an AG in an administration. But respectfully, people shouldn't be that shocked in that this was the first presidential campaign in memory, in history, that had attempted to normalize, be charitable toward, a relationship with Russia and its leader, Vladimir Putin.
Matthews seized on Williams’s point and assisted in connecting dots that may or may not pan out. A member of the same media that knocked anyone concerned about the Clinton/Lynch meeting or paid Clinton speeches, Matthews complained how “troubling” it was that Sessions met with the Russian Ambassador while the country dominated the headlines.
“Here is a guy walking right in the middle of this controversy and they're saying that it never came up in the meeting, it was not in their thinking in what they never saw it as contextual. How can that be? How is that credible that he wasn’t thinking? Here comes the Russian guy in, right in the middle of the mess on the front pages of all the major newspapers, and it never occurs to me to think about it,” Matthews screamed.
Williams took back the controls and next brought on NBC News Justice correspondent Pete Williams to bait him into accepting these theories about Sessions and denounce him for not fully recusing himself.
“To sum up, it is clear to people just tuning in, this Russian investigation, as I keep saying, is going to distract, if not consume, the early part of this presidential administration,” Williams gleefully stated.
However, Pete Williams didn’t take the former NBC Nightly News anchor’s bait. In fact, he repudiated it by setting his colleagues straight:
Well, but remember, the whole focus of this, what the FBI has been looking at, is Russia's attempts to influence the election. That's the whole act here. That's what this is all about. What the Russians do, what were they trying to do to get Americans here to help them, what were they doing to hack into the Democratic National Committee's computers. That really is the ball game. And anything that happened after that is — to the extent it is going to be included will be sort of slopover from the main part. I think his recusal will be more generous than that. I appreciate a lawyerly reading in the Justice Department of all places, but I — that strikes me as maybe a little too far.
Here’s the relevant portion of the transcript from the 4:00 p.m. Eastern hour of MSNBC Live:
MSNBC Live
March 2, 2017
4:20 p.m. EasternBRIAN WILLIAMS: Ari, the word “campaign” kind of jumped out. That means the clock starts again on election day?
ARI MELBER: That's correct. You put your finger on it. This recusal by Attorney General Sessions is both significant, as it confirms the view of the career ethics lawyers at the DOJ that there is reason to recuse from these campaign investigations. Recusal is also partial, for the reason you just stated, Brian, that it is of a duration regarding only campaigns, which means by definition on its face, it is not a recusal from any potential investigations regarding matters after election day. We know that is important cause after election day is when the FBI interviewed the then-national security adviser. After election day is when there have been reports by multiple news organizations, including this one, about these ongoing questions. So this is a significant recusal and a partial one.
WILLIAMS: So after election day, it becomes the President-Elect. And after that, it becomes an administration and that you are saying is so much of this activity that people are worked up about has happened during the administration. We've already seen the departure of the national security adviser.
MELBER: That's correct. And legally, I would say it has either happened during or has been contemplated for happening during and I don't mean to be fancy. What I mean by that is some of the allegations, unproven, we are careful, we are talking about inquiries. Some of the allegations involved, questions about what the administration would do later, whether they would go softer on Russia, whether they would have different sanctions policies. Those are all about a campaign that might be an administration, to use your structure that I think is very helpful here, not the idea of a campaign on its own. So by contrast, just to be clear, if there were an inquiry of campaign financial improprieties, we know that ends at election day. The fund-raising literally is for everything before election day. That would be a more natural end date, but because of some of the allegations and questions are circling around what that campaign would do if elected and whether there were any potentially inappropriate promises made, with or without the knowledge of the candidate, with or without the knowledge of the senior leadership, but those are the things the FBI is investigating, that goes to things that happened after election day. That said, we don't want to bury the news here. It is a big headline and big development that this Attorney General who has been criticized by many as we well know for his ties to President Trump and whether he would be independent. He is saying today he met with the ethics lawyers, he took their counsel, and he will partially recuse himself from these investigations if they exist.
(....)
WILLIAMS: Chris, here is what is extraordinary. On top of the departure of a national security adviser 24 days into the presidency, this is probably the earliest recusal of its kind of an AG in an administration. But respectfully, people shouldn't be that shocked in that this was the first presidential campaign in memory, in history, that had attempted to normalize, be charitable toward, a relationship with Russia and its leader, Vladimir Putin.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Right. I thought there was a couple big stories besides the headline, which is the recusal, but I thought it was interesting. His defense, of course, in — of his answer to Senator Franken during his confirmation hearings where Franken had asked a rather direct question about surrogates. Did he have any knowledge of a surrogate, anyone dealing with the Russians and his answer was “I have been called a surrogate a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians and I'm not able to comment on it.” In other words, he’s saying, as a surrogate, I never spoke to the Russians. Now, here’s the troubling part of what he said just now. He said that he and at least three staffers — he said two senior staffers and a junior staffer met with the Russian ambassador at the ambassador's request and he did so on September 8th. Now, he also said just what he said now, I didn't know there was anything going on with the Russians or the questions about the Russians being involved in our campaign or not and then I am looking at these headlines here, Brian. Here’s September —September 5th. Three days before the meeting. New York Times headline: “Hillary Clinton accuses Russia of interfering with U.S. Election.” September 5th. The same day. “U.S. investigates potential covert Russian plan to disrupt November elections.” November 7th, the day before the meeting. So, the headlines coming into his meeting with the Russians and the three staffers, “U.S. officials warn Russia over alleged hacks.” So, he had three professional staffers. He called them professionals, all grouping with him before the Russian ambassador comes in at his request and it never occurred to them to think about the fact — here is a guy walking right in the middle of this controversy and they're saying that it never came up in the meeting, it was not in their thinking in what they never saw it as contextual. How can that be? How is that credible that he wasn’t thinking? Here comes the Russian guy in, right in the middle of the mess on the front pages of all the major newspapers, and it never occurs to me to think about it or think his mission here has something to do with perhaps trolling for information along the lines of exactly what the investigation was that had begun. This is the part of the statement today, not the recusal, that grabs me, saying he didn't understand the context when it was all over the front pages at the time.
WILLIAMS: Chris Matthews, you'll get part of this coverage as we go on through the night as well. Pete Williams, the last questioner called upon. We saw you there at the news conference, Pete. To sum up, it is clear to people just tuning in, this Russian investigation, as I keep saying, is going to distract, if not consume, the early part of this presidential administration.
(....)WILLIAMS: Pete, Ari Melber and I zeroed in on one word in the attorney general's statement, and that word is “campaign.” This is a limited recusal in that it takes him out of the game where the investigation is looking at Russia in the campaign. But the clock starts on the administration, at least the transition and then the administration, on election day, correct?
PETE WILLIAMS: Well, but remember, the whole focus of this, what the FBI has been looking at, is Russia's attempts to influence the election. That's the whole act here. That's what this is all about. What the Russians do, what were they trying to do to get Americans here to help them, what were they doing to hack into the Democratic National Committee's computers. That really is the ball game. And anything that happened after that is — to the extent it is going to be included will be sort of slopover from the main part. I think his recusal will be more generous than that. I appreciate a lawyerly reading in the Justice Department of all places, but I — that strikes me as maybe a little too far.
