He's clearly hiding something.
Sessions was asked by Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) what he would do if he learned of any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of the 2016 campaign.
“I’m not aware of any of those activities,” he responded. He added: “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.”
Sessions did two things here, first he acknowledges his links to the campaign, then he says he didn't have any communications with the Russians. We know the second part is false.
In a statement issued Wednesday night, Sessions said he “never met with any Russian officials to discuss issues of the campaign. I have no idea what this allegation is about. It is false.”
He's knocking down a strawman - no one has (yet) accused Sessions of communicating with the Russians about the campaign. The uproar is about the fact that he lied under oath.
Justice officials said Sessions met with Kislyak on Sept. 8 in his capacity as a member of the armed services panel rather than in his role as a Trump campaign surrogate.
“He was asked during the hearing about communications between Russia and the Trump campaign — not about meetings he took as a senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee,” Flores said.
First of all, that's a misrepresentation of the question. The question was about what Sessions would do if he learned that anyone affiliated with the campaign had communicated with the Russian government. He volunteered the information that "I did not have communications with the Russians," which is misleading at best.
And then there's this:
In the case of the September meeting, one department official who came to the defense of the attorney general said, “There’s just not strong recollection of what was said.”
Right. So Sessions, a Trump surrogate, invites the Russian Ambassador to his office for a chat, right around the time that it was becoming clear that Russia was attempting to interfere in the election with the specific aim of electing Trump, and he can't remember what they talked about. And yet, he claims that it was Senate business and not election business.
Well, Jeff, which is it? How the hell can you claim so forcefully that the meeting was about Armed Services Committee business if you don't remember what you talked about? Are you really sure you should be AG with a memory that bad? Why did you find it necessary to engage in hairsplitting in your confirmation hearing?
His denials strain credulity, to say the least.