[mrsmith]

Oh!
NO, no. Not disputing the accuracy of the quoted part of the transcript, but the context.

It is the immediately *previous* remarks and question of Franken that set the context for the quoted question and reply. And make Sessions’ reply reasonable and responsible.
As, also, does Franken’s immediate follow-up.

The subject was Russian interference in the election. That is what Sessions addressed, and tried to address fully.

[nathanbedford]

Since you do not dispute the accuracy of the transcript, I say again as I said in my reply #26, is there anything in Franken's question that limits the question to campaign conversations? I make the case that that interpretation is plausible. I deny that it is the only or exclusive reasonable interpretation of the scope of Franken's question. Nevertheless, whatever the scope of Franken's question, it is plausible that nominee Sessions question was so limited. That is a plausible inference but not the only inference.

Unfortunately, there is Session's overbroad answer:

"… I did not have communications with the Russians…"

That is a flat misstatement under oath. The question is can it be spun because of the context, as you suggest.

Again, it is plausible that Sessions after hours of testimony simply misunderstood the question as relating only to campaign conversations or conversations concerning alleged Trump vulnerabilities. But it is not the only explanation, indeed, the more plausible explanation is that he intended the plain meaning of his words. But that is not the test, nor should it be the test. Nevertheless, the exchange is unfortunate.

Equally unfortunate is the fact that Sessions never cleaned up the misstatement. One can say that he had no reason to think of it or, on the other hand, one can say that in view of the fiasco concerning General Flynn, Sessions should have been put on his guard. Even without that fair warning raised by General Flynn, a prudent nominee would have reviewed his testimony as a matter of course and cleaned up any ambiguities. Sessions did not.

That is the analysis as I see it. There is nothing in the video the changes that opinion. Your mere referral to a video over and over again without exposing the explicit words or the actual context in which you refer is certainly not helpful to the reader.