I know, I know. I should never give Breitbart the page hits. But sometimes I just can’t help reviewing how they are responding to a story which might damage faketrumpestine. And here again — they do not disappoint — as Joel B. Pollack grasps furiously at the one the “larger context” to explain away the Sessions lie:
Note that Sessions was not actually asked whether he or anyone affiliated with the campaign had any kind of communication with the Russians, ever. He was asked, first, about “a continuing exchange of information” — repeated contacts between the campaign and representatives of the Russian government.
In the full context of Franken’s remarks, it is clear that Sessions was asked about the allegations in the dossier, and he denied such “communications” to the extent of his ability to do so.
This is pretty thin gruel. But to give the argument its due, Let’s look again at the exchange with Sessions:
Franken: CNN just published a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president-elect last week, that included information that “Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump.” These documents also allegedly say “there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.” Again, I’m telling you this as it’s coming out, so you know. But if it’s true, it’s obviously extremely serious, and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?
Sessions: Senator Franken, I’m not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it.
Hmmm. Now — perhaps if Sessions had said instead “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and AS A SURROGATE I did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it” — there MIGHT be something to the Breitbart complaint. But this is a very clear — declarative sentence — clearly meant to distance himself from the Russians as much as possible. And it is quite simply — a lie.
Moreover, even buying the larger context argument — we now find that he did discuss “election-related news.”
Where will this story end? It's hard to say. But if Breitbart were to have its way it would be ignored by a diligent press as “Fake News.”
It’s been asked before, It will be asked again. Where is the bottom (of the story, of Breitbart’s integrity, of tea-drinking credulity?).
