Said he had no contact with the Russians during the campaign.
Now WaPo is reporting he met with the Russian ambassador at the GOP convention and then later in September. As a member of the Senate armed services committee this might have been legitimate. But lying under oath at his confirmation - no way.
Now we get to see if the Republicans have any ethics at all. Even the smallest drop.
Lock him up!
LOCK HIM UP!
LOCK HIM UP!
Taking bets on how the Liar in Chief tries to spin this in his favour.
My money’s on <mumble>Obama<mumble>Hillary<mumble>best international relations.
The first one might be problematic, but the second one has a get-out-of-jail-free card:
“Several of the President-elect’s nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?” Leahy wrote.
Emphasis added. He can simply claim the meeting(s) had nothing to do with the 2016 campaign.
“I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.”
Doesn’t matter what was discussed. This is clearly perjury regardless of what was discussed.
"I did not have communications with the Russians.”
– Jeff Sessions at his Jan. 10 Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing
Perhaps I should have said his answer to the first question might be problematic. Oh wait, I did.
It does not matter. Republicans are allowed to commit perjury, to have private email servers, to buddy up with the Russians, to lie about anything and to approve military missions that are screw-ups.
This is perfectly fine. Because they are Republicans.
Just remember Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath, not because he got a blowjob. Now it seems lying under oath isn’t that big a deal, so was it really the blow job that did Clinton in?
It’s OK when a Republican does it.
Also, it doesn’t matter, because Hillary had emails.
Don’t worry, the Sessions camp has an explanation for lying to Congress:
Sessions’ spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said there was nothing “misleading about his answer” to Congress because the Alabama Republican “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.”
He wasn’t wearing his surrogate hat. He was wearing his Armed Services Committee hat. Number of members of the Armed Services Committee other than Sessions who met with Russian Ambassadors last year? Zero.
Also, this explanation is almost as bad as Clinton’s “definition of ‘is’” explanation
It’s especially a problem because he referred to himself as a campaign surrogate. Oops…
“I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.”
Maybe they just stared lovingly into each other’s eyes and did not communicate otherwise?
MSNBC is doing a two hour special tonight on Russia/Trump connections, and had to interrupt it twice with breaking news about Russia/Trump connections.
Yo, dawg, I hear you like reporting on Russia/Trump connections…
Maybe he’ll say that the real problem is the way open testimony before Congress somehow got leaked to the press.
Unless Sessions is claiming that the wearing of differing hats triggers entirely different personalities within his body, he has no defense. He plainly said “I did not have communications with the Russians.”
He lied. Unless he has multiple personality disorder.
And I don’t think he’s claiming to have multiple personality disorder. So: he lied.
But his answer was in response to a question about the campaign, so I suspect he’s now saying that the context of his response was “I, as a surrogate for the campaign, did not have communications with Russians.”
That’s pretty hinky, of course. But it’s likely enough to dodge a criminal charge of perjury.
It is, in my view, lying under oath.
He lied about not talking to the same guy that Flynn lied about not talking to.