Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
Sessions could have said he didn't meet regarding the election but did see the Amb. 2x - once for xmin. when he stopped by and once for ymin when blah blah blah.
He could have said even more than you suggest. He could have pointed out that his position in the Senate required meeting ambassadors from different countries, including Russia, that he may or may not have had even more than the two meetings he cited but couldn't remember, that other Senators had meetings with foreign ambassadors, that in the recent past during the Obama administration other Senators, even including Democrats, had met with a Russian ambassador . . . and on, and on.
A good lawyer will tell his client to answer questions specifically as asked an not to voluntarily provide more information than that which is asked. The intent of an adversarial interrogator, even if asking a seemingly innocuous question, is to evoke something which might be used against you. There was no valid reason to ask Sessions if he had met with any Russian other than if he did so in connection with influencing the election. Sessions answered exactly and specifically that valid question.
Instead by answering the way he did, it is now up for interpretation whether he lied or not.
Don't think it is a reason to quit but a further investigation is warranted.
|
Why does it require further investigation. The question was asked, and it was answered. If anything is now up for "interpretation" it's what was the actual point of Franken's question. Did he intend to ask if Session had met with "any" Russian for "any" reason? That would be largely inappropriate to ask. Or did he ask if Sessions met with someone in the Russian administration regarding, and influencing, the election. And that is the question Sessions answered.
Other than the intent of Franken's question, what further investigation is warranted?