It's not illegal for a Senator to speak w the Russian Ambassador. So why lie about it under oath?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

Link to tweet

[sunonmars]

1. He's up to his neck in it......he knows we know now

[BSdetect]

2. Exactly.

[randome]

3. Because this is The Big One.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-gravity-is-strong

Why are there so many unforced errors? Why conceal this meeting? Frankly, why lie about it? As I said, big, big scandals work like this. People who don't even appear to be that close to the action keep getting pulled under for what seem like needless deceptions. The answer is usually that the stuff at the center of the scandal is so big that it requires concealment, even about things distant from the main action, things that it would seem much better and less damaging simply to admit.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[SticksnStones]

4. It's always the coverup, not the crime, that brings you down...

[wishstar]

5. Same reason Flynn lied about discussing sanctions with Kislyak

So questions and concerns over Trump campaign/ Russian collusion would be dismissed, discounted and diminished as long as possible.

[DetlefK]

9. This is different. Sessions had an excuse for talking to Kislyak. Flynn had none.

Flynn's crime was making foreign-policy behind the back of the US government.
Sessions' crime is lying under oath.

That's two entirely different things.

[enough]

6. Good question. NT

[mountain grammy]

7. Exactly!

[beachbum bob]

8. context of having a conversation at the RNC and then a formal meeting at session's office

obviously admitting to contact continues to reinforce the narrative of russian intelligence working with those inside of trumps campaign and perhaps with trump....


and the fact that truth just isn't in their nature

[brooklynite]

10. "It's not the crime, it's the coverup"

It would be embarrassing to bring up links to Russia in the post-election period, so Sessions parses the meaning of the statement so he can say "no".

[Demit]

11. It seemed pretty clear to me, he was dodging Franken's actual question.

Which was a hypothetical, "What would you do IF..." Sessions didn't want to be boxed into a commitment, so he offered up what he thought was innocuous information but sufficient to avoid a direct answer.