Quote:He was asked about contacts between Trumps campaign and Russia. What does that have to do with him, a US Senator at the time, having a meeting with the Russian ambassador as a member of the Armed Services Committee? They are not the same thing.


“There was absolutely nothing misleading about his answer,” said Sarah Flores, a spokeswoman for Sessions. “He was asked during the hearing about communications between Russia and the Trump campaign — not about meetings he took as a senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee.”


Two different roles, although I agree that the answer could have been more inclusive, but its fairly defensible. Here is the actual exchange: <a class="bbc_url" href='https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUbipBuuRY8'>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUbipBuuRY8</a>


"During his January confirmation hearing for his appointment as Attorney General, Sessions was asked by Senator Al Franken what he planned to do if he found out members of the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia. “I’m not aware of any of those activities,” Sessions said."I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.”


This was clearly in the context of being in 'Trumps campaign' as is obvious in the video. Should he have added that he talked to the Russians as a member of the Armed Services Committee? Possibly, but that really wasn't the context of the question or the spirit. The implication of the article that he 'negotiated a deal' is not defensible based on evidence currently available.


The biggest piece of evidence they offer for this conclusion is the story of the 'private meeting.' Which is pure speculation based on an unnamed source from WaPo (a most liberal publication):


"The Washington Post said one of the meetings was a private conversation between Sessions and Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak that took place in the senator's office in September."


Obviously anything the WaPo said I will take with more than a grain of salt, especially when it comes to the opposition. And considering the Justice Departments previous actions I have no doubt its another former Obama era aid with an obvious axe to grind. Without something further and much more damning this is nothing but political grandstanding.