Jeff Sessions Is Probably Not Going to Appoint a Second Special Prosecutor

Tom Williams/Congressional Quarterly/Newscom via ZUMA

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Yesterday there was a bit of fuss on social media over the possibility that Attorney General Jeff Sessions would appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Uranium One and Hillary’s emails and the Clinton Foundation and all that. Today, this came up at a congressional hearing:

Sessions said the department would need a “factual basis” to appoint a second special counsel to investigate a host of GOP concerns — and he rejected the suggestion by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) that such a basis already existed….Jordan said he appreciated Sessions was considering appointing such a person, but asked, “What’s it gonna take to get a special counsel?” Near the end of a testy exchange, Sessions said, “Looks like is not enough basis to appoint a special counsel.”

On Monday Sessions wrote a letter to Congress regarding the Clinton charges, but my take is not that he was laying the groundwork for appointing a special counsel. Just the opposite: he seemed to be laying the groundwork for declining to appoint a special counsel. He punted the whole issue to the career staff, which is almost certain to recommend against a special counsel since there’s no evidence of any wrongdoing. That will give Sessions the backup he needs to stand up to President Trump, who’s been pushing for the Justice Department to “investigate the Democrats.”

Sessions is an odd bird. Ideologically, he’s my polar opposite, so he’s going to do lots of things I don’t like. But he also seems to have a pretty intense streak of personal honor and respect for the law. That’s how he views himself, at any rate, and pushing him to violate that honor is likely to accomplish nothing except to make him even more stiff-necked. So I’ll go out on a limb and predict that he won’t appoint a special counsel to investigate all these empty allegations. We’ll see.

But don’t get too comfortable. I’m sure the House and Senate will spend plenty of time on this stuff. There’s an election coming up, after all.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend