I have recused myself in the matters that deal with the Trump Campaign. That statement by the Attorney General On Thursday came after the Washington Post revealed that sessions met twice last year with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak. Sessions scrambled to clarify. In retrospect i should have slowed down, but i did meet one russian official a couple of times and that would be the ambassador. Sessions met with kislyak on july 18th, after speaking with a group of ambassadors in the Republican Convention and he met again with the Russian Ambassador at his office on september 8th, just three days after President Obama took a hard line on russian sanctions in a g20 meeting with vladimir putin. Since the election, trump and his surrogates have repeatedly denied any contacted between the campaign and russian officials. Im telling you its all phony, baloney garbage. All of the contact by the Trump Campaign and the associates was with the American People. You are not aware of any contacts dur
we know that this is the case. there s nothing there. especially this recent discussion about jeff session which is is the kind of height of the ludicrousness of this, okay? if jeff sessions really was a mole working for the russian government he probably would have found a better place to have met with them than his public senate office surrounded by his aides so the meetings are not necessarily what matter. they don t prove anything. the one thing i will say this on these meetings is there any substance? they do have this pattern of oh, yeah, i forgot i had this meeting. as many in washington have suddenly forgot, mr. schumer, for instance about meeting with russian ambassador. but there is a difference? i don t know. you don t think there is a difference between those two? no. if you headed to a meeting and a bunch of ambassadors head to you, you wouldn t remember that? that i understand. after the mike flinn situation do you not try to correct the record? that
the ludicrousness of this, okay? if jeff sessions really was a mole working for the russian government he probably would have found a better place to have met with them than his public senate office surrounded by his aides so the meetings are not necessarily what matter. they don t prove anything. the one thing i will say this on these meetings is there any substance? they do have this pattern of oh, yeah, i forgot i had this meeting. as many in washington have suddenly forgot, mr. schumer, for instance about meeting with russian ambassador. but there is a difference? i don t know. you don t think there is a difference between those two? no. if you headed to a meeting and a bunch of ambassadors head to you, you wouldn t remember that? that i understand. after the mike flinn situation do you not try to correct the record? i agree, there is no evidence, that s why we need a special prosecutor and independent commission and we need to see
are and what happened during the election are two very different things. it is not just the russians who want to interfere in our election. lots of countries want to interfere in our elections. do you remember the chinese and all gore? that s not the point. the point is was there somebody inside the trump campaign who was working with him and did the president know about that and were they successful? i think on tho latter two questions we have no idea. no evidence. there is no evidence. i just heard chuck schumer suggest exactly what we know that this is the case. look, there is nothing there. especially this e cent discussion about jeff sessions, which the kind of height of the ludicrousness of this. if jeff sessions was a mole working for the rubben government, he would have found a better place to meet with them than his public senate office surrounded by his aids. the meetings are not necessarily what matter. but the one thing, i will say this is there any substance?
this mr. play and how it could effect the president s re-election campaign. is this really as the president put it a matter for the states? or has the supreme court already ruled? judge napolitano says it s settled law. we ll hear from him shortly. well, the new underwear bomb had a backup system. multiple sources now confirm to fox news the bomb that al qaeda was plotting to use on an airplane had a second detonator, in case the first one didn t trigger the explosion. remember the last time an underwear bomber tried to blow up a plane in 2009 that detonator is what failed. here is what the old underwear bomb looked like. we re told the new one was designed to fit inside formed-fitting briefs in an effort to help the bomber get through an airport security patdown. might have worked. but a mole working for the saudi arabian intelligence and our cia inserted himself into the plot and volunteered to carry out this suicide mission. instead, of course, he turned the bomb over to investigato