1. I did not articulate a position that the "Senator was not truthfully answering the question asked."
2. I simply observed that the transcript does not prove that he was telling the truth:
"The Breitbart article opines that the transcript shows that Attorney General Sessions is telling the truth. It does not, it simply provides an alternative explanation which is enough, certainly enough to withstand any calls for a special prosecutor. The language in the Franklin question is ambiguous enough for the Attorney General to claim that he was telling the truth as he understood it."
3. Please note Sessions reply, "Sessions: Senator Franken, I’m not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it."
4. You ask, "Was not the question regarding Sessions contact (if there was any) in the specific context of whether the 2016 election was a topic of discussion?"
5. No, Franken's question was not so limited. In any event sessions answer was not delimited, "… I did not have communications with the Russians…"
6. Sessions did in fact have "communications with the Russians" so the question becomes, is there anything in Franken's question which limits it to certain kinds of communications as opposed to any kind of communications?
7. The Franken question from the transcript:
Franken: "CNN just published a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president-elect last week, that included information that “Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump.” These documents also allegedly say “there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.” Again, I’m telling you this as it’s coming out, so you know. But if it’s true, it’s obviously extremely serious, and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?"
8. The predicate for Franken's question had to do with incriminating documents, so it might be argued that the question related only to "compromising personal and financial information about Mister Trump"
9. But the Franken question goes on to identify "continuing exchange of information" is that limited to "compromising personal and financial information about Mister Trump" or does it open it up to any kind of communication?
10. Unfortunately, whether limited or not, the question was answered in an overbroad and incautious manner. The context of the question does not prove that Sessions was telling the truth, but it does leave the matter open to alternative plausible explanation. If Jeff Sessions had known about the ambiguities subsequent to that hearing and before all this came out, the fact that he did not correct the record is problematic. We simply do not know the state of his mind. Nor do we know the state of his mind at the time he answered the question.
11. Therefore, especially when one views the context of the Senator operating in the capacity of the senatorial office and treating with several ambassadors at the time, there is more than reasonable doubt that is answers were entirely ingenuous. Even if one concludes that he probably told the truth there is no conclusive evidence that he did tell the truth as asserted by Breitbart rather there is equally evidence from the ill considered breath of his answer to believe that he did not.
