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?”
************************************************************
Disagree. The entire line of questioning by Franken was in the context of Sessions communication regarding the election and that, I believe is how sessions answered the question.
A you may well know it is entirely possible to ask a question to which ANY answer can later be used against the individual who answered.
All Sessions need do is stick to what he said, that there was NO talk of the possible ramifications to US/Russia relations based on the winner of the election. If Sessions is being truthful (and I believe he is) then let the Libs produce actual evidence, something they have not been able to do throughout this ENTIRE Russia fiasco.
All Sessions need do is stick to what he said, that there was NO talk of the possible ramifications to US/Russia relations based on the winner of the election. The problem is Sessions did not say what you describe. The problem is he made a blanket denial. The denial, as a blanket denial, was false and was made under oath.
The problem is the answer went beyond the scope of the question.
That is not necessarily conclusive, but to say the transcript proves he was telling the truth is simply not true to the record. It is possible to read the transcript so that the question is in fact limited to contacts and communications concerning the election or concerning damaging information against Trump. That reading is possible but certainly more strained than looking at the blanket denial, that he did not have any meetings, and saying it is untrue. However, it is not damning enough to make him resign although the pressure to recuse is unfortunately building by the hour.
