Washington (CNN) When Attorney General Jeff Sessions appears before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on Tuesday, he may cite executive privilege to avoid answering certain questions. 
 
 On Monday, the White House did not rule out the possibility of Sessions invoking executive privilege at some point during his testimony. 
 
 "It depends on the scope of the questions," White House press secretary Sean Spicer said, but wouldn't elaborate. "To get into a hypothetical at this point would be premature." 
 
 But is that legal? Technically yes, according to a handful of legal experts. 
 
 Diane Marie Amann, a law professor at University of Georgia, agreed with Spicer that invoking privilege was possible: "It depends on the questions that are asked," she said. 
 
 This will be the first time Sessions has testified in Congress since he recused himself from the Justice Department's probe into Russian meddling in last year's election, and since the firing of FBI Director James Comey. Questions have arisen about Sessions' role in Comey's firing, his own involvement in the Trump campaign and his meetings with Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the US. 
 
 "There's no doubt that conversations that involve national security in a real sense are potentially protected by an executive privilege," Amann said. "But some of the areas that have been under discussion, with regard to confidential communications, are not classified -- and don't implicate national security. That's much more of a gray area." 
 
 If Sessions chooses to opt out of answering certain questions, legal experts say the committee can hold him in contempt -- but that could elongate the testimony and could potentially take months. 
 
 "If they choose to do so, that could lead to litigation in court about whether the privilege exists and whether its applies in the instance that he invoked it," Amann said. 
 
 The committee can also work with the Trump administration to come up with a solution. 
 
 "The Committee can negotiate with the Administration to get answers to narrower or different questions or to get answers in a closed session," Lisa Kern Griffin, a professor at Duke University School of Law, told CNN. "If they do not come to any agreement, of course the matter could be litigated. The Supreme Court case that describes the scope of executive privilege arose from a similar dispute concerning the Nixon tapes." 
 
 Discussions with the attorney general on topics within the scope of the President's constitutional duties ordinarily would be protected, lawyers say. 
 
 What Sessions will and won't choose to answer "is up to him," CNN's senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin told Wolf Blitzer on "The Situation Room" on Monday. 
 
 "If Jeff Sessions refuses to answer questions tomorrow, he's going to refuse to answer questions tomorrow," Toobin said. "It's really under Sessions' control tomorrow which questions he wants to answer." 
 
 Still, for Sessions, there's a great deal at stake politically with this testimony. Reports last week suggested Sessions offered his resignation to Trump because the President blamed Sessions for exacerbating his Russia problems by recusing himself from the probe. 
 
 "The peril to Sessions is a great deal more regarding those conversations with the Russians because he made sworn statements on his security clearances that appear to be contradictory to his actual record with contact with Russians," Toobin said. "That relates to his personal liability. That's what I think he's going to be considerably worried about. He's going to have some explanation, we'll see if people find it credible." ||||| The attorney general is facing increased scrutiny from lawmakers after former FBI Director James Comey testified last week. | Getty Sessions to testify in open hearing before Senate Intelligence Committee 
 
 Attorney General Jeff Sessions will testify in an open hearing Tuesday before the Senate Intelligence Committee on his role in the unfolding Russia investigation, according to congressional and Justice Department officials. 
 
 Sessions informed Congress over the weekend that he will appear before the intelligence committee, rather than before previously scheduled hearings regarding funding for the Justice Department. 
 
 Story Continued Below 
 
 DOJ and Senate officials did not initially indicate over the weekend whether Sessions' appearance would be public or private. The hearing is scheduled for 2:30 p.m. 
 
 The attorney general is facing increased scrutiny from lawmakers after former FBI Director James Comey testified last week that he knew details about Sessions before his recusal from the Russia probe that would make his involvement in the investigation “problematic.” 
 
 The DOJ said in a statement, "The Attorney General has requested that this hearing be public. He believes it is important for the American people to hear the truth directly from him and looks forward to answering the committee's questions tomorrow." 
 
 Over the weekend, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a member of the committee, urged for an open session. 
 
 Comey's testimony "allowed me to ask the former director about the attorney general's actions before and after his recusal, whether the attorney general's role in firing Comey violated that recusal, and whether the attorney general knew about the concerns related to former national security adviser Michael Flynn," Wyden wrote to committee leaders on Sunday. 
 
 Breaking News Alerts Get breaking news when it happens — in your inbox. Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. 
 
 Wyden added, "The American people also deserve to hear the attorney general's answers to these questions, as well as others related to his meetings with the Russians and his failure to disclose those meetings to the Senate Judiciary Committee." 
 
 Sessions recused himself March 2 from the Justice Department's investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. His senior role in Trump’s presidential campaign — and the revelation earlier this year that he failed to disclose meetings with the Russian ambassador during his confirmation hearings — led to his decision to step aside from any federal probes involving the Trump campaign. 
 
 But testimony last week from Comey thrust Sessions again into the spotlight. Comey said he alerted Sessions to what he felt was inappropriate pressure from Trump on investigatory matters. Comey also said he wasn’t sure whether Sessions played a role in Trump’s decision to abruptly fire him on May 9. 
 
 “I think it is a reasonable question," Comey testified last week. "If, as the president said, I was fired because of the Russia investigation, why was the attorney general involved in that chain? I don't know. So I don't have an answer for the question." ||||| Attorney General Jeff Sessions will face a range of questions about the firing of FBI Director James Comey and his contacts with Russian officials in a public testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on June 13. (Reuters) 
 
 The Senate Intelligence Committee has announced that Attorney General Jeff Sessions will testify at an open hearing tomorrow afternoon about questions raised by former FBI director James B. Comey’s testimony last week. The hearing will give members of the committee a pivotal opportunity to definitively pin down the attorney general, who was a key Trump campaign surrogate, on matters relating to both his role in the campaign’s communications with Russian officials and, later, the investigation into it. 
 
 If Sessions is forthcoming, he could illuminate both the larger story of the Trump campaign’s alleged contacts with Russian officials during the campaign, and how the Trump administration may have sought to subvert the investigation into it. 
 
 During his testimony last Thursday, Comey made two key points that suggest lines of inquiry for Sessions for Democrats (and Republicans, if they are so inclined) to follow up on. 
 
 First, Comey strongly suggested that the FBI had information about Sessions’s contacts with Russian officials, well before the public learned of these contacts from early March news reports. Second, Comey raised questions about the degree to which Sessions has actually recused himself from the Russia investigation. So here’s what Democrats should pursue: 
 
 THE SCOPE OF SESSIONS’S RUSSIA CONTACTS 
 
 The Intelligence Committee should try to pin Sessions down on his own contacts with Russian officials as a Trump campaign surrogate, what he knows about other campaign contacts with Russians and why he failed to be fully forthcoming with Congress in the past. 
 
 Sessions has not always been truthful about his own contacts with Russian officials. At his Jan. 10 confirmation hearing, under questioning by Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) about communications between “Trump surrogates and intermediaries of the Russian government,” Sessions denied, under oath, any communications or contacts with any Russian officials during the presidential campaign. He did the same in his written answers to questions. 
 
 The Senate confirmed Sessions to be attorney general on Feb. 8, and he was sworn in the next day. But it didn’t take long for Sessions’s flat disavowal of knowledge of Trump campaign communications with Russian officials to fall apart. 
 
 On March 1, less than a month after Sessions became the nation’s top law enforcement official, The Post reported that he had, in fact, met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak two times during the course of the Trump presidential campaign, once at the Republican National Convention in July, and once in his Senate office in September. Sessions initially called the report “false.” But soon after, Sessions recused himself from “any existing or future investigations of any matters related in any way to the campaigns for President of the United States.” 
 
 Four days later, Sessions wrote a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee as a “supplement” to his testimony, admitting to the two meetings, but continuing to insist his testimony was “correct.” But the truthfulness of that assertion also quickly came into question. On March 8, a Huffington Post report placed Sessions at an April 27, 2016, gathering at the Mayflower Hotel, where Kislyak was present, for a foreign policy speech by then-candidate Donald Trump. About two and a half weeks after Sessions’s recusal, Sens. Franken and Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), both Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, wrote a letter to Comey, who was still FBI director, asking him to open a criminal investigation into whether Sessions had perjured himself. Trump fired Comey on May 9. 
 
 According to Comey’s testimony, it appears the FBI knew about events that would require Sessions’s recusal, even before Sessions’s meetings with Kislyak were reported in the press. Comey testified that in consultation with his leadership team, he determined not to share the details of Trump’s efforts to get him to drop the FBI investigation of former national security adviser Michael Flynn with Sessions, because the attorney general “was very close to and inevitably going to recuse himself for a variety of reasons. We also were aware of facts that I can’t discuss in an open setting that would make his continued engagement in a Russia-related investigation problematic.” 
 
 Chris Anders, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington Legislative Office, says Comey sent a very clear signal with this statement. “It’s hard to read Comey’s statement as anything other than something related to Sessions’ role with the campaign and Russia,” he told me. 
 
 But while Comey wasn’t at liberty to share the classified details he had learned about Sessions’s possible Russia contacts as FBI director, the same restriction would not apply to Sessions, Anders said. Sessions’s contacts, as a Trump campaign surrogate, with Russian officials, are not classified. Instead, they are his actual experience, not information gleaned by a law enforcement official in the course of a counterintelligence investigation, as was the case for Comey. Given his prevarications in the past, Sessions should be asked to fully reveal the details of these communications and whether there were any others. 
 
 THE SCOPE OF SESSIONS’S RECUSAL 
 
 The second key line of questioning senators should pursue, Anders said, is about how Sessions perceives the scope of his own recusal from the Russia investigation. At his hearing, Comey was asked a key question by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.): If, as Trump admitted on national television, he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation, to what degree was Sessions involved in that decision, despite his recusal? 
 
 “I think it is a reasonable question,” Comey said, but one to which he did not know the answer. 
 
 Senators must question Sessions about this, says Anders, not just to get to the bottom of whether Sessions played a role in the decision to fire Comey, but also to elicit from Sessions how he will proceed going forward. That’s because these two things are related. As Wyden told NPR, “If you compare the recusal letter he issued indicating that he was not in any way going to be involved in the Russian investigation, and the fact that the last couple of days indicate that he was hip-deep into the matters surrounding how it was James Comey resigned, I think that is a blatant disregard of the commitment he made to the American people and to the Congress that he would not be involved in the Russian matter.” 
 
 Anders says Sessions must be pressed on the specifics of what his recusal really means in practice. “Does he retain any authority to step in and stop [special counsel Robert] Mueller from pursuing any aspect of any investigation in any way related to Russia and the campaign, or any of the players involved in the campaign?” Anders asked. The committee, he said, needs to uncover whether Sessions believes he retains any power at all over the investigation, given the lack of clarity about what that power encompasses. ||||| Washington (CNN) Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Wednesday faced tough questions from his former colleagues on the Senate judiciary committee -- forcing him to once again repeatedly deny any improper contacts with the Russian government during the presidential campaign. 
 
 "My concern is you were part of the Russian facade and went along with it," Vermont Democrat Sen. Patrick Leahy said after a second round of tense questioning as the hearing stretched into the afternoon. "I'm sorry, I've known you for years, and I'm sorry you would do that. " 
 
 Sessions denied the allegation and expressed dismay that his former committee chairman would make it. 
 
 "It did hurt me to hear you say I'm part of a façade, I'm not part of a façade," Sessions said. 
 
 During the nearly five-hour hearing that touched on topics including Russian election meddling, immigration and criminal justice reform, Sessions also debated executive privilege with committee Democrats. 
 
 Sessions refused to discuss his "confidential conversations with the President," rejecting Democrats' questions about his interactions with President Donald Trump despite their pre-hearing warnings they expected him to answer, saying they were misunderstanding executive privilege. 
 
 "I can neither assert executive privilege neither can I disclose today the contents of my confidential conversations with the President," Sessions said. "It is well established that the President is entitled to have private, confidential conversations with his Cabinet officials ... such communications are the core of executive privilege." 
 
 Chairman Chuck Grassley backed up Sessions after several rounds of such questions, saying former Attorney General Eric Holder had made similar claims during the Obama administration. 
 
 Over the hours of his testimony, Sessions defended his integrity amid sharp questioning from Democrats -- in particular Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota -- who grilled Sessions over previous comments he made during his confirmation process where he said he had not had been in contact with anyone connected to the Russian government during the presidential campaign, a topic of keen interest amid the ongoing investigation into Russian meddling in the US election. 
 
 It was later revealed that Sessions met with then-Russian Ambassador to the US Sergey Kislyak on multiple occasions. 
 
 "I've committed myself to a high level of public service, to reach the highest level of standards and decency in my public service," Sessions told Franken. "You have now gone through this long talk that I believe is totally unfair to me." 
 
 Sessions' comments on executive privilege were a disappointment to the panel's Democrats, who had written him an earlier letter that they expected him to testify about conversations he had with the President about the firing about former FBI Director James Comey. 
 
 Sessions told the committee: "I cannot waive that privilege myself or otherwise compromise his ability to assert it." 
 
 Sessions also grew visibly uncomfortable when Leahy asked him about his interactions with Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation. Leahy pressed Sessions on whether he had been interviewed by Mueller, not allowing Sessions to demur to ask the special counsel about it first. 
 
 "The answer's no," Sessions finally said. 
 
 In an awkward follow-up exchange later with Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal, the Democrat pressed Sessions on whether he or his office had been asked for an interview, with Sessions smiling wanly as he avoided giving a firm answer. 
 
 "I don't think so," Sessions said, adding he was "not aware of it." 
 
 Incredulous, Blumenthal asked Sessions if he was sure. Sessions said he would follow up "within hours." 
 
 "I don't know," Sessions said. "You seem to know, I don't want to come in here and be trapped. .. I will check and let you know." 
 
 Later in the questioning, Sessions added: "My staff handed me a note that I have not been asked for an interview at this point. ... Maybe you better check your source." 
 
 Wednesday's hearing is the Judiciary committee's first turn to ask questions of Sessions since his confirmation hearing, a sore subject for committee Democrats who have pushed for a chance to question the attorney general on a range of issues, including the Russia investigation and the extent of his prior contacts with Russian officials that led to his recusal from the investigation 
 
 Executive privilege and pardon power 
 
 Democrats had warned Sessions they would ask him about conversations he's had with President Donald Trump, a topic Sessions dodged when testifying in June before the intelligence committee citing concerns about executive privilege. 
 
 The top Democrat on the committee, Sen. Dianne Feinstein reiterated that message in her opening statements at the hearing, which covered voting rights, civil rights, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and the Comey's firing. 
 
 "It's important, I believe to understand what role you had in this process, including conversations you had with the President and others in the White House," Feinstein said, saying Democrats already alerted Sessions they "expected answers or the assertion of a valid claim of executive privilege by the President." 
 
 The topic was also the subject of a tense exchange with Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, who read aloud from policies and rules about executive privilege and pressed Sessions on whether he was stretching the limits of what the White House is entitled to. 
 
 "This period of abeyance has turned into a non-assertion assertion of executive privilege," Whitehouse said. 
 
 "The executive branch is a co-equal branch and you would not want someone demanding to know who you talked to in your office, your counsel, your chief of staff. Neither would we want to be prowling willy-nilly through the Supreme Court and what their clerks knew or were told," Sessions said. "This is not a little matter, is all I'm saying to you. And if this isn't legitimate and you make the specific cases, we'll review it, but it shouldn't be done casually, I got to say." 
 
 The presidential pardon power also came up in relation to the Russia investigation. Sessions was asked by Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat from Minnesota, about whether the President could pre-emptively pardon a person under investigation. 
 
 "Well the pardon power is quite broad," Sessions said, saying he'd prefer to answer in writing. "I have not studied it. I don't know whether that would be appropriate or not, frankly." 
 
 He later told Blumenthal: "My understanding is a pardon can be issued before a conviction's occurred." 
 
 Russia comes up again 
 
 Sessions' meetings with Russian officials during the 2016 campaign came up quickly during the hearing, and was the subject of multiple testy exchanges with his former colleagues on the committee. 
 
 Leahy asked Sessions about his response to a question on his confirmation questionnaire. Leahy referred to the questionnaire, which asked if Sessions had been in contact with anyone connected to the Russian government. 
 
 "You answered emphatically, no," Leahy said, noting that after Sessions' confirmation it was revealed by the press that Sessions had met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak on multiple occasions. "You answered no, you concealed your own contact with Russian officials at a time when such contacts were of great interest to the committee." 
 
 Leahy said that as a senator, Sessions "wouldn't tolerate being misled" and asked him if he could "understand" the impression of Democrats that his answer was "false testimony." 
 
 "I believe my answer was correct," Sessions said, pulling out the questionnaire and reading from the lead-up to the question, which referenced interference in the 2016 campaign. 
 
 "I took that to mean, not any casual conversation, but did I participate with the Russians about the 2016 election," Sessions said. "Every one of your previous questions talked about improper involvement and I felt the answer was no." 
 
 Leahy and Sessions went back and forth for several minutes, with Leahy noting that both men were lawyers and know the difference between "no" and "I don't recall." He asked Sessions anew whether he had discussed with Russian officials emails, interference in the election, sanctions and the Magnitsky Act, and Trump's policies with Russian officials. 
 
 Sessions and Leahy went through each, with Sessions giving answers from "I don't recall having done any such thing" to a flat "no." 
 
 Heated exchange with Franken 
 
 Franken picked up on the exchange, and pressed Sessions on his answers to the Democrat's own questions during the confirmation hearing. In a back and forth that included repeated asides about time remaining and pleas to the chairman for fairness, Sessions took umbrage at Franken's implication that he had acted improperly. 
 
 Franken read extensively from Sessions' public statements, saying repeatedly "the goalposts have been moved." 
 
 "Not being able to recall what you discussed with him is very different than saying, 'I have not had communications with the Russians,'" Franken said. "The ambassador from Russia is Russian. And how your responses morphed from, 'I did not have communications with the Russians' to 'I did not discuss substantive, I did not discuss the political campaign' and then finally going to, 'I did not discuss interference in the election.'That, to me, is moving the goal posts every time. ... By the end, we're going to a 75-yard field goal." 
 
 "Let me just say, without hesitation, that I conducted no improper discussions with Russians at any time regarding a campaign or any other item facing this country," Sessions tried to begin his answer, before an aside about time. 
 
 "Mr. Chairman, I don't have to sit here and listen --" Sessions said. 
 
 "You're the one who's testifying," Franken shot back. 
 
 "Without having a chance to respond, give me a break," Sessions said. 
 
 Sessions also read at length from the transcript of his confirmation hearing and Franken's original question, which referred to a CNN report about the Trump dossier that he said at the time he did not expect Sessions would have yet seen. 
 
 "I'm disappointed," Sessions said. "I think it was a good faith response to a dramatic event at the time. And I don't think it's fair for you to suggest otherwise." 
 
 When it became Nebraska Republican Sen. Ben Sasse's turn to ask questions, he cut the tension with humor and apologized for a distraction during the previous exchange. 
 
 "I dumped a Dr. Pepper on Sen. Cruz, so that was what was distracting us on this side of the dais," Sasse cracked. 
 
 Going into a break from the hearing, Grassley referenced private information that he and Feinstein were given by then-Director Comey that he wished the committee could be briefed on, saying he believes it would have helped assuage Franken's concerns. He said they had asked the FBI to give the full committee a briefing on it but were denied. 
 
 "The FBI did not do that and now we have conflicts I think could have been avoided if the FBI would have been more transparent," Grassley said. 
 
 Travel ban 
 
 The oversight hearing comes after a tumultuous summer for Sessions, during which he was publicly derided by the President over his recusal from the Russian meddling investigation, served as the face of the administration's decision to rescind DACA and as his department suffered setbacks in the courts in trying to implement key pieces of the President's agenda, a fresh one coming Tuesday when a federal court blocked the third travel ban from going into effect and a second judge followed suit in part on Wednesday. 
 
 Sessions defended the travel ban in his opening statements on Wednesday, saying it was an "important step" for national security. 
 
 "It is a lawful and necessary order that we are proud to defend," Sessions said. "We're confident that we will prevail as time goes by in the Supreme Court." 
 
 This story has been updated with additional developments and will continue to update. ||||| With Attorney General Jeff Sessions appearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee on June 13, there's a lot lawmakers want to straighten out. Here are three of the major questions they'll have. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post) 
 
 Attorney General Jeff Sessions could be at the center of two controversies in the Trump administration: whether Donald Trump's campaign colluded with Russia to help Trump win and whether the president obstructed justice. 
 
 That's why it's a big deal that he'll testify Tuesday before the Senate Intelligence Committee, the main committee in Congress investigating Russian meddling in the campaign and potential Trump meddling in the fallout. 
 
 Here's why Sessions is at the center of so much, and here's how he can help us better understand the still-unraveling Trump-Russia-FBI investigation. 
 
 1. He met with Russians during the campaign, when they were allegedly trying to help Trump win 
 
 
 
 Jeff Sessions prepares to testify in January at his confirmation hearing to be attorney general. (Jim Lo Scalzo/European Pressphoto Agency) 
 
 Besides Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, Sessions is the highest-profile member of Trump's campaign and administration who we know met with Russians during the 2016 campaign and didn't disclose doing so. Sessions didn't disclose those meetings when he was asked, under oath, during his confirmation hearing. 
 
 A day after The Washington Post reported that, Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation. 
 
 Why that's a big deal: It's normal for U.S. political campaigns and foreign officials to talk. But former CIA director John Brennan recently told Congress that his “radar” went off anytime Russians met with the Trump campaign because he knew the Russians were trying to influence the election, and he knew they often did that by trying to recruit “either wittingly or unwittingly” U.S. officials to help. 
 
 What Congress will want to know: A lot. Are there more meetings Sessions had that he didn't disclose? Why isn't he forthcoming about these meetings? What did Russia want to talk about? Did he get the feeling Russians were trying to recruit him or others for anything? 
 
 2. He was James B. Comey's boss when Comey said Trump was trying to interfere in the FBI's Russia investigation 
 
 Former FBI director James B. Comey testified about his interactions with President Trump before the Senate Intelligence Committee June 8. Here are key moments. (Sarah Parnass/The Washington Post) 
 
 Sessions is a starring character in the fired FBI chief's testimony. Comey testified last week that Trump shooed Sessions out of the Oval Office so he could be alone with Comey, then asked Comey to back off the FBI's investigation of fired national security adviser Michael Flynn. 
 
 “My sense was the attorney general knew he shouldn't be leaving, which is why he was lingering,” Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday. 
 
 Comey later told Sessions that he didn't want to be alone with the president. But Comey said he didn't tell Sessions why he was so concerned. 
 
 “We considered whether to tell the attorney general, decided that didn't make sense because we believed, rightly, that he was shortly going to recuse,” Comey testified. 
 
 Why this is a big deal: A few reasons. Did Sessions suspect that Trump was trying to interfere in the FBI's various investigations of Flynn and Russian meddling? And what did he do about it? Also, why did Comey think he couldn't trust Sessions? 
 
 What questions Congress will want to know: Pretty much everything above. 
 
 3. Sessions has technically recused himself from the Russia investigation 
 
 Attorney General Jeff Sessions offered to resign his position at one point in recent months, according to two people close to the White House. (Victoria Walker/The Washington Post) 
 
 But Comey left open the possibility that Sessions had violated his recusal. 
 
 “If, as the president said, I was fired because of the Russia investigation,” Comey testified, “why was the attorney general involved in that chain?” 
 
 The Washington Post reported that Trump called Sessions up to the White House to talk about firing Comey, then asked Sessions (and Sessions's No. 2, Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein) to explain in writing the case against Comey. 
 
 The Post also recently reported that Sessions offered to resign, in part because of Trump's frustration that he stepped aside from the Russia investigation. 
 
 Why this is a big deal: Sessions is a Trump ally, and he appears to be caught between the president and his promise to run the Justice Department in an apolitical way. In his confirmation hearing, Sessions promised: 
 
 “You simply have to help the president do things that he might desire in a lawful way and have to be able to say no, both for the country, for the legal system and for the president, to avoid situations that are not acceptable.” 
 
 What Congress will want to know: Where does Sessions draw the line on recusal? Can he be trusted to not interfere in the department's independent Russia investigation, which is now being led by a special counsel? If it comes down to the Justice Department having to choose whom to believe, special counsel Robert S. Mueller III or the president, whom will Sessions choose? ||||| Attorney General Jeff Sessions Jefferson (Jeff) Beauregard SessionsSenators call for DOJ to stop blocking medical marijuana research Hatch: Those advising Trump to fire Mueller going against 'nation's best interest' Gingrich compares FBI raid of Trump lawyer to Nazi secret police MORE said early Thursday that he would be willing to recuse himself from any investigation of Russian involvement in President Trump's campaign if it's "appropriate." 
 
 "I have said whenever it's appropriate, I will recuse myself," he told NBC News. "There's no doubt about that." 
 
 In @NBCNews exclusive video AG Sessions says he will recuse himself from Russia investigation whenever appropriate: pic.twitter.com/wKajg9MUJj — Morning Joe (@Morning_Joe) March 2, 2017 
 
 Reports emerged late Wednesday that Sessions spoke twice with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the 2016 presidential race. Sessions did not disclose those conversations during his confirmation hearings for attorney general, testifying under oath that he “did not have communications with the Russians.” 
 
 ADVERTISEMENT 
 
 Sessions defended himself during his comments with NBC News, saying he didn't discuss the presidential campaign with Russian officials. 
 
 “Well, I have not met with any Russians at any time to discuss any political campaigns,” he said. "Those remarks are unbelievable to me and are false. I don’t have anything else to say about that.” 
 
 Sessions's latest comments come as more GOP lawmakers say he might have to recuse himself from any investigation involving Russia and the Trump campaign at the Justice Department. 
 
 On Thursday morning, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) suggested it would be "easier" if Sessions recused himself from any Russia-related investigations that might come up. 
 
 "I don't have all the information in front of me, I don't want to pre-judge, but I just think for any investigation going forward, you want to make sure everybody trusts the investigation," McCarthy said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." 
 
 "That there's no doubt within the investigation. ... I think it would be easier from that standpoint, yes." 
 
 The FBI is said to be investigating contact between Russian officials and members of the Trump campaign, though there has yet to be any formal charges brought. Committees in the House and Senate are pursuing their own investigations. 
 
 Sen. Lindsey Graham Lindsey Olin GrahamSchumer: Mueller protection bill would pass by 'very large majority' Hatch: Those advising Trump to fire Mueller going against 'nation's best interest' Graham uses Fox News appearance to ask Trump not to fire Mueller MORE (R-S.C.) on Wednesday said that if the FBI finds any criminal activity related to campaign aides' alleged contact with Russian officials, then a special prosecutor will likely be needed. 
 
 Rep. Sean Duffy Sean Patrick DuffyMarch for Our Lives to leave empty seats for lawmakers at town halls GOP lawmaker: 'Of course' Dems will impeach Trump if they take control of House Longtime manager of Bon Iver to run for Congress in Wisconsin: report MORE (R-Wis.), meantime, said he wished Sessions had been "more clear" during the confirmation process about his meetings. 
 
 "It gives me some pause that he wasn't more clear about the meeting," Duffy said Thursday morning on CNN's "New Day." 
 
 "I think as he's going through the campaign with Mr. Trump though, he was acting in his official capacity as a senator, you want to disclose that information and I think it should have been more clear during his confirmation process that he did have the meetings." 
 
 Sessions, a former Republican senator from Alabama, reportedly spoke with Kislyak during a July Heritage Foundation event at the Republican National Convention attended by about 50 ambassadors. 
 
 A Department of Justice official told The Washington Post Kislyak was among a group of diplomats who approached Sessions and spoke with him informally there. 
 
 Sessions also spoke with Kislyak via phone in September, according to a spokeswoman for the attorney general. 
 
 The conversation took place during a time when U.S. intelligence officials assert that Russia was interfering in the 2016 race through a hacking and influence campaign. 
 
 Reports emerged last month that top aides and allies of Trump’s White House run were in recurring contact with senior Russian intelligence officials. 
 
 Democrats seized on news about Sessions speaking with Kislyak, arguing Sessions must recuse himself from any federal investigation into contact between Russia and Trump’s team. 
 
 Sen. Elizabeth Warren Elizabeth Ann WarrenWarren: Mulvaney is 'hurting real people to score cheap political points' Overnight Finance: Mulvaney asks Congress to retake power over consumer agency | Backs House in fight over Dodd-Frank rollback | Why Corker thinks tax cuts could be one of his 'worst votes' ever | House panel advances IRS reform bills Mulvaney urges Congress to strip agency's powers MORE (D-Mass.) called for Sessions to resign following the news. 
 
 "This is not normal. This is not fake news," Warren tweeted. "This is a very real & serious threat to the national security of the United States." 
 
 House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) also called for Sessions's resignation, saying Sessions is "not fit to serve as the top law enforcement officer of our country." 
 
 Trump has repeatedly dismissed the reports of Russia contacts as "fake news" and suggested the real issue is leaks of information from the intelligence community. 
 
 Yet scrutiny of the issue continues to build, particularly after Michael Flynn resigned last month as national security adviser for misleading Vice President Pence about his own phone conversations with Kislyak after the election. 
 
 This report was updated at 9:54 a.m.
– Attorney General Jeff Sessions slides into the hot seat Tuesday afternoon, to testify in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee on his contact with Russians in an open hearing (the open part reportedly at Sessions' request). It'll be his first time testifying in front of Congress since he recused himself from the Russian investigation, and he'll face questions centered around three names: President Trump, Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, and James Comey. As a starting point, the Washington Post explains why Sessions' testimony on Russia matters. Axios outlines three "thorny" questions Sessions will face and provides his expected answers. Two involve Sessions' interactions with Kislyak; the third has to do with a Feb. 14 conversation between Sessions and Comey. "This is a big deal, as Comey gave his account under oath." The Washington Post draws up a list of its own questions Sessions should be asked, and they're spun off of two "key points" from Comey's testimony: that the FBI knew of Sessions' interactions with Russian officials long before it became public and a sticking point around his recusal: If Trump fired Comey over the Russia investigation, how much involvement did Sessions have in the firing? CNN asks a thorny question of its own: "Can Jeff Sessions avoid some questions by citing executive privilege?" Sean Spicer on Monday suggested such a move is possible, and legal experts tell CNN he could legally do so in certain situations—if a question touched on national security, yes, about a confidential conversation, maybe not. But it could get hairy: The committee could hold him in contempt if he invokes it, leaving it to the courts to decide whether privilege is applicable. The Los Angeles Times places its bets: Sessions "is expected to support the president under oath and to question Comey’s version of events, giving the White House a chance to push back after days of harsh headlines." Sessions will appear before the committee about 2:30pm EDT. For some in-depth pre-hearing reading, check out Julia Ioffe's lengthy look at Sessions' interactions with Kislyak and other ambassadors at the Atlantic.