Agreed. Bricker is right IMHO.
Sessions did lie, but it is not enough. There is enough wiggle room.
I hope you all can understand i do not support this administration POLITICALLY.
BUT, I am willing to admit the same things. Clinton avoided the whole perjury thing by committing the most amazing act of legalese about “sexual relations”. So, I am sorry, we have to give Sessions the same pass.
Hey, Race Bannon was cool! I liked Race; he was a true action hero. Pence ain’t no Race Bannon!
CNN correspondent Jim Acosta just tweeted that “Former Trump campaign nat sec adv JD Gordon tells me he and other nat sec adv’s met with Russian Amb in Cleveland during GOP convention” and “Then Senator Jeff Sessions presided over the meeting, Gordon added.”
BOOM.
And: “At convention Gordon says he and others advocated for GOP platform to include language against arming Ukrainians against pro-Russian rebels” and “Gordon says this was in line with Trump’s views, expressed at March national security meeting at unfinished Trump hotel in March.”
Not directly Sessions-related, but even better: shows that Trump himself was the origin of that Ukraine bit in the GOP platform.
I’m gonna have a hard time pulling myself away from the laptop this evening. 
God I think Trump is horrifying and stupid. So please do not take this as support.
But, is it our stipulation here that ANY meeting with a Russian was illegal?
Don’t we have to prove there was SOME connection to the campaign and the fixing.
I required the same burden of proof for every allegation against obama.
As noted down thread, he was under oath, he was at his confirmation hearing and presumably he was aware of the extent to which his contacts and/or dealings – any dealings – with the Russians were of concern. In such a case, the correct answer was something like, “Except for 2 meetings with Russian Ambassador Kyslyak in my capacity as a member of the Senate, I have not had contact with the Russians during the presidential campaign.”
Instead, he answered that "he did not “have communications with the Russians,” during the presidential campaign. Pretty misleading answer, because he obviously did. IOW, a lie.
It certainly wasn’t incumbent upon Al Franken to narrow the question when he had no idea about the meetings.
Lucky Mike, I agree Sessions should be given “the same pass” as Clinton. Clinton was impeached for his lie, and lost his license to practice law. What would be a congruent punishment for a sitting AG, do you think?
Good Lord. At this point, is there ANY Trump campaign person who DIDN’T meet with the Russians? This would be a shorter list, I think.
And they met the Russian ambassador DURING THE GOP convention? Not to worry. I’m sure the meeting had nothing to do with the campaign, no sir. This would be the convention where the GOP’s stance on Russia’s move into Crimeawas considerably softened. Mere coincidence I’m sure.
It’s all a series of odd coincidences!
Nobody said it was illegal.
It merely adds more rubber to the burning tire fire that is the Trump administration. It seems pretty clear that many members of the Trump campaign were working very closely with Russian administration. Some have lied about this, and paid the price for lying.
And it makes it more and more probably that the Trump campaign was aware of, and approved of the Russian hacking of Democrat information, and subsequent release to WikiLeaks. Illegal? Maybe not if the Trump campaign did not do it directly. Ethical? Leave that to the voters. Many Republicans appear to be fine with Russian interference in their election, as long as they benefit. Shitheads.
Sessions is also just a bigger deal in the Admin than Flynn ever was. He was Trump’s only Senate backer early in the campaign and the Trump admin now has a lot of people formerly in Session’s orbit. And of course, Sessions has been in gov’t for a hundred years, and has a lot of natural allies in the Senate, the GOP, etc. Trump bailing on him would be pretty disruptive, in what is already a not exactly smoothly running admin.
Flynn on the other hand seems to have burned all his bridges with the military even before hooking up with Trump, didn’t really have any pull beyond his Russian media connections and a few extreme rightwing media types and was supposedly already getting pushed out by Matthis and Tillerson. Throwing him under the bus didn’t do anything but help the Administration.
Plus, at this rate the Admin. is in danger of losing appointees faster than its appointing them and getting them confirmed.
It is not illegal to meet with a Russian, nor is it illegal to be pro-Russia.
But there is both the Logan Act and the Emoluments Clause. If Trump or any of his people made any sort of deal with Russia, in exchange for campaign support or due to financial interests, then those would be grave issues. We’re basically bypassing Nixon and going straight to Benedict Arnold.
Some amount of coordination between Trump’s team and the Russians might make sense once Trump won the election, since he did run on a pro-Russia platform. But anything before that would really not make sense unless there was collusion going on between Trump and Russia, either to win the election or make some money.
What’s disturbing about the story is that it isn’t really illegal, or even improper, for Sessions to meet with a Russian Amb. But he seems to have gone out of his way to lie about it anyways. Which would just be weird on its own, but in the context of all the Trump camps other sketchy attempts to hid obvious Russian connections make it pretty clear that Sessions is in on “it” to, whatever “it” may turn out to be.
I think the focus on perjury is kinda misguided. I agree with Bricker that he left himself enough wiggle room to not be found guilty of perjury, even if there was the will to try him for it. But even if he could be found guilty, I think it sort of misses the point. Whether he’s guilty of a crime or not, its pretty clear that he’s involved in some sort of cover-up, and that the Russian thing goes beyond Cohen/Manafort/tFlynn.
+Carter Page
+Jared Kushner
+JD Gordon
+Jeff Sessions
It’s a veritable Russian Tea Doll. Every time you open one up, there’s another one inside!
But the defendant gets to do just that if he chooses (enter character evidence), it’s only the prosecution that can’t. If the defendant wants to introduce evidence of his good character (a.k.a non-murderyness), he can under 404(a)(2).
“Assumptions”? We’re talking evidence, not assumptions. And of course “I’ve never broken this law” is definitely capable of influencing a finder of fact. I think you’re off base here.
What other capacity could Sessions have been in, for this meeting? He was a Trump campaign insider, it involved other people with roles in Trump’s campaign, and it was at the GOP convention.
Certainly it’s absurd to think he didn’t need to mention this, or that multiple meetings with the Russian ambassador could have all slipped his mind. Unless he’s too senile to have any business holding an important office.
Maybe still not enough to convict him in a court of law (I will continue to yield to the judgment of the lawyers on that), but good enough for any other purpose, AFAIAC.
Just for bonus points, the Russian name for these dolls is ‘matryoshka.’ 
WaPo’s investigating a report from anonymous sources that Jefferson Beauregard Sessions lied about private meetings with Ulysses S. Grant prior to the Confederate’s surrender at Appomattox. This oughtta be good.
I think that’s really the ultimate effect of the latest revelation. Sessions won’t be wearing orange, but the investigation into Russian connections remains - and probably will remain - an unsettled matter.
Even if the matter is resolved legally a la the Clinton Foundation and other shady practices under the color of election politics, this could turn out to be a massive political problem if Russia ends up pushing further into Eastern Europe and creating political and economic instability in Western Europe.
Reminds me of:
Saffron: He’s my husband.
Mal: Well, who in the damn galaxy ain’t?!
and each one has smaller hands…