The Washington Post dropped some more catnip for liberals.
They’re very happy to gobble this up and regurgitate it out:
Russia’s ambassador to Washington told his superiors in Moscow that he discussed campaign-related matters, including policy issues important to Moscow, with Jeff Sessions during the 2016 presidential race, contrary to public assertions by the embattled attorney general, according to current and former U.S. officials.
Ambassador Sergey Kislyak’s accounts of two conversations with Sessions — then a top foreign policy adviser to Republican candidate Donald Trump — were intercepted by U.S. spy agencies, which monitor the communications of senior Russian officials both in the United States and in Russia. Sessions initially failed to disclose his contacts with Kislyak and then said that the meetings were not about the Trump campaign.
I’m not sure this is such a big deal – the Russians are known for putting out misinformation in order to trip up their opponents, and this comes straight from an ambassador known for counter-intelligence involvement.
THIS could be a problem:
One U.S. official said that Sessions — who testified that he has no recollection of an April encounter — has provided “misleading” statements that are “contradicted by other evidence.” A former official said that the intelligence indicates that Sessions and Kislyak had “substantive” discussions on matters including Trump’s positions on Russia-related issues and prospects for U.S.-Russia relations in a Trump administration.
Well that kinda sounds like perjury doesn’t it? And again – if Russians have evidence of it, that makes him susceptible to blackmail. IF the report is true.
Sessions’ spokesperson had nothing to say:
“Obviously I cannot comment on the reliability of what anonymous sources describe in a wholly uncorroborated intelligence intercept that the Washington Post has not seen and that has not been provided to me,” said Sarah Isgur Flores, a Justice Department spokeswoman in a statement. She reiterated that Sessions did not discuss interference in the election.
But why drop it now? Clearly, it’s to damage Sessions after Trump already publicly berated him. So who benefits from this report?
On the other hand, they might have been forced to drop this story on Friday – which is awful for stories – because they had to head off something else… something.. bigger…