(THREAD) Following Sessions' Congressional testimony, investigators must find out who was in the room with Jeff Sessions when he negotiated sanctions policy with Sergey Kislyak in his Senate office on September 8, 2016. I think we know two of the people. Please read on and share. 
1/ Sessions' story on his September 2016 meeting with Russia's ambassador has changed repeatedly—despite several sworn testimonies. First, he failed to disclose the meeting on forms; then, he failed to disclose to Congress; then, he couldn't remember details; now, he has details.
2/ Sessions originally said he had two aides with him; now, facing accusations of perjury, he says he had "at least" two aides with him. Unfortunately, no one in Congress has asked who those aides *were*—as none of them could claim any privilege in testifying before Congress.
3/ Moreover, the first time Sessions noted he had aides with him, he indicated they were ex-military—which suggests the third or subsequent aides in the room (as "at least" suggests more than two) are people who weren't ex-military *or* who he didn't want Congress to know about.
4/ One reason to hide the identities of the people who met with him and Kislyak is so that Congress won't question them—and certainly, if Sessions had been willing to see them questioned, he would've offered Congress their names. Another reason? They were on Trump campaign staff.
5/ Sessions right-hand man on the Trump campaign—the man who effectively ran (day-to-day) the NatSec group that Sessions was the head of—was J.D. Gordon (ex-Navy). Gordon retired from the Navy as a Commander—the equivalent, in the other armed services, of a Lieutenant Colonel.
6/ Sessions just revealed in Congressional testimony that the two aides in the room with him he was willing to directly reference were "colonels." This could be a cagey way of referring to Gordon, but in at least one case it's more likely he was referring to an ex-Army colonel.
7/ This man, Lenwood ("Pete") Landrum, was a Senior Defense Policy Advisor for Sessions at the time Sessions met with Kislyak on September 8, 2016. He's a retired colonel who at the time was the highest-paid person on Sessions staff—tied with some others. bgrdc.com/b/bio/49/Pete-…
8/ Sessions' Legislative Director at the time, Sandra ("Sandy") Luff, may also have been in the room with Kislyak on September 8, 2016. Key here is that she was a member of the Trump transition team, in fact Deputy for Defense and National Security Policy. montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/news/pol…
9/ During the 2016 presidential campaign, Olivier Knox—the Chief Washington Correspondent for Yahoo! News—tried to find out if Sandy Luff was advising the campaign. He couldn't get an answer. But all signs currently available would seem to point to "yes." olivierknox.tumblr.com/post/141080925…
10/ Sessions' Chief of Staff at the time, Rick Dearborn, may also have been in the room, and is certainly someone Sessions wouldn't have wanted to mention to Congress because Dearborn received outreach from the Russians (via an intermediary) for a meeting. newsweek.com/rick-dearborn-…
11/ And of course J.D. Gordon is the man most responsible for changing the GOP platform to benefit Putin at the RNC—according to an interview he gave with CNN, under direct orders from President Trump (given at a meeting with the then-candidate in March 2016 at Trump's DC hotel).
12/ I'm still looking into Sandra ("Sandy") Luff's pre-Senate professional background, but if this article is about her (and pictures suggest that it may be), she too is, like Landrum, a retired colonel. norwich.edu/about/news/200…
13/ What we know:
1. Sessions repeatedly tried to hide his September 2016 meeting with Kislyak.
2. Sessions doesn't want to say who met Kislyak with him.
3. He has changed his story on how many people met Kislyak with him.
4. It's nearly certain at least one was a Trump advisor.
1. Sessions repeatedly tried to hide his September 2016 meeting with Kislyak.
2. Sessions doesn't want to say who met Kislyak with him.
3. He has changed his story on how many people met Kislyak with him.
4. It's nearly certain at least one was a Trump advisor.
14/ Sessions' September 2016 meeting with Kislyak came after Trump was on legal notice there was a "high likelihood" Russia was committing crimes against the U.S. via hacking and other illegal acts. If Trump told Sessions, Sessions could *not* negotiate sanctions with Russia.
15/ Sessions was, in summer 2016, Donald Trump's chief foreign policy and national security advisor, so the chance he didn't tell Sessions what was said in his first national security briefing on August 17th, 2016—assuming Sessions wasn't there, which he might have been—are zero.
16/ Moreover, Kislyak set up the September 2016 meeting at the RNC *with Sessions directly*—at a time Sessions was representing the campaign. So Sessions' absurd claim the September meeting was in his capacity as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee cannot be credited.
17/ This lie under oath (and it would be a lie) could be brought further into the light if we knew for certain who was in the room with Sessions and Kislyak—as Luff, Dearborn and Gordon may all have been Trump advisors and, critically, Kislyak may well have known that beforehand.
18/ Moreover, Luff, Gordon, Dearborn, and Landrum could not hide behind *any* privilege (other than the right against self-incrimination) if called to testify—indeed, they wouldn't even be in a position to make up a privilege, as Jeff Sessions has repeatedly done before Congress.
19/ Gordon and Dearborn—who may have been in the room, but we don't know for sure—can already be called as witnesses because of their other involvement with Russian outreach and Russia policy during the campaign. Luff and Landrum can be called because Sessions has now outed them.
20/ Under oath, and facing criminal charges for lying, these four individuals would have to reveal whether Jeff Sessions made any offers on sanctions policy to Sergey Kislyak after the campaign had learned of Russian cyberattacks. Any such offer would be a serious federal crime.
21/ With four witnesses the chances of getting the truth increase—as one might invoke the Fifth Amendment, another might lie, another might claim not to recall (etc.) but at least one would have enough of a sense of self-preservation to tell Congressional investigators the truth.
22/ Given Sessions' claim the only thing he can recall about the meeting is he "argued with Kislyak"—said by Sessions to imply he made no offers on sanctions—if in fact Sessions offered Trump's policy (a unilateral sanctions drop) to Kislyak, Sessions could face perjury charges.
23/ There's no reason for Congress not to follow up on Sessions' testimony by speaking to his aides. If Republicans believe Sessions' testimony—and they say they do—they won't be worried about hearing from other individuals who (in their view) would *bolster* Sessions' testimony.
24/ Pundits have given us a false view of Perjury—that it's rarely charged because it's impossible to prove. That's nonsense—on both counts. And one way you can prove perjury is by finding *other witnesses* who can testify to the same events to establish a defendant's "mens rea."
25/ If Sessions claims he can only recall "arguing" with Kislyak—in the context of a well-documented selective memory—and other witnesses say he made Kislyak a major promise, any jury would convict him as his "guilty state of mind" (his mens rea) would be established for perjury.
CONCLUSION/ Luff, Landrum, Dearborn, and Gordon. These must become major names in the Russia probe, facing both on- and off-record, public and private questioning from Congress and Bob Mueller. America knows Sessions is lying to us—and at least one of these people could prove it.
NOTE/ I want to thank the individuals who contacted me privately and not for attribution—as people in and out of media now do, on a surprisingly regular basis—to offer leads on these names. I receive 25+ tips daily, and fewer than 1% of these ever end up on the feed. This is one.
