I’m not saying this is what happened, but it doesn’t really take that much imagination-- they both were there, needed to talk “Senate business” and figured, why set up a special meeting back in Washington for that.
Why would the Russian ambassador be at the RNC? Everyone he works with is in Washington.
I’m pretty sure Trey Gowdy is the little Confederate monkey. Are they brothers?
Let me guess: You can’t imagine why the Russian ambassador would attend a party convention, right? 
The State Dept routinely invites foreign ambassadors to attend both conventions. This is not controversial, and has been going on for years.
Ignorance fought. I still don’t understand it, though.
Just to exapand a little further, here is a webpage from the National Democratic Institute, a non-governmental organization aligned with the Democratic Party that works on many foreign affairs issues, describing its efforts during the 2012 convention:
Impeach Tremp Now!
He has to sleep sometimes.
I prefer to think of Trey Gowdy as the “greasy shiny chipmunk turd,” but YMMV.
https://wonkette.com/617669/heres-all-your-late-breaking-trump-russia-news-for-you-to-poop-on
It’s to show the world how our amazingly wonderful democracy works. Yeah, I don’t get it either. 
The shepherd is never far from his flock.
He wanted to make sure his vote got counted?
Got my faults, and its a long damn list, but “stupid” ain’t on it.
.
I know, that’s why the first quote refers to the Senate hearing, and the latter does not. In neither case true, which is the crux of the biscuit, here. Am I typing too fast?
I believe the first instance is conducted under oath. I’m told that is an important distinction. Am I misinformed about that?
As to the defense of intervening and overriding authority, whats the point of the form if telling the truth isn’t required? “Give us this information, but if you feel like skirting the truth, sure, knock yourself out.”
And this:
Is interpreted to mean that flat falsehoods are acceptable? And even if we buy that loophole the size of the Holland Tunnel, he still fibbed to Congress. If he can lawyer his way out of the form, he gets a freebie?
Why, if you aren’t stupid, do you keep bringing up the hearing when I have consistently been talking about the form?
Is this correct? I just pulled up an SF-86. The 2010 version, which I think is still operative, contains this question:
Doesn’t Sessions have to answer “YES” to that as to all of his Kislyak meetings?
You got a writ from the Thread Police, defining your capacity to set the standards? Is the thread title wrong, is that it? It can’t be “lied again” if he can squirm out of one charge, and therefore you win something? Well, then, I guess you sure showed me a thing or two!
John Oliver characterized this circus as “Stupid Watergate”, as in this is a mess akin to the Watergate scandal, but involving really stupid people; but I think it would be better referenced as Dimwit, Loser, Bonehead, Spy written by a brain-damaged John le Carré. These people aren’t the Cambridge Five. The’re not even the Duquesne Spy Ring. They’re so stupidly arrogant about flaunting federal law and reporting requirements that they make keeping a private email server for government business look like a jaywalking violation by comparison.
This is like a bad knockoff of a Coen Brothers film, or a game of Fiasco gone really, really wrong.
Stranger
I prefer my original: “Tweeter, Hater, POTUS, Spy”, but that’s pretty good too. 
Well, it appears you are correct that this section does indeed direct that. After flipping through it, I see now that I was thinking of the earlier 20B questions relating to travel.
However, that still does not mean that one is compelled to ignore the text of the form when given instructions by the office handling the investigation. For example, it is extremely common for applicants to be directed to provide 10 years of information on various questions even though the form directs that you provide 7 years.
The DOJ has stated that the FBI investigator said that he shouldn’t include information on what is surely many hundreds of official meetings with foreign officials over a couple decades. This is not a big deal in any way, shape, or form.
Contrast that to real issues, like Flynn hiding foreign payments from his disclosure forms. That is a big deal, obviously.
Or to use another current example, Jared Kushner omitting foreign meetings from his form. It’s impossible for me to come up with a rationale for why that should be the case. But Sessions? Not an issue.