As the continuing drip of revelations comes out that seemingly everyone involved in Donald Trump’s campaign knew that overtures were being made to and from Russia by people within the campaign, the pressure on the world’s most evil Keebler elf, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, continues to get cranked up. Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) has been terrorizing Sessions with the simplest of questions since Sessions acted like the lying racist asshole Jeff Sessions is during his confirmation hearings back in January. On Thursday, Sen. Franken sent a letter to Jeff Sessions that you can see here, care of Talking Points Memo. In it, Sen. Franken is very clear.


Once again, developments in the ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election have brought to light evidence that you failed to tell the truth about your interactions with Russian operatives during the campaign, as well as your awareness of Russian contacts by other members of the Trump campaign team. This is another example in an alarming pattern in which you, the nation's top law enforcement officer, apparently failed to tell the truth, under oath, about the Trump team's contacts with agents of Russia-a hostile foreign power that interfered in the 2016 election. We must get to the bottom of what happened so that we can prevent it from happening again, and I am deeply troubled that this newest revelation strongly suggests that the Senate-and the American public-cannot trust your word.


You were a liar in January and we all knew it. Now, more information has come to light showing how much of a liar you are. Sen. Franken proceeds to point out the various places Sessions was less than truthful in his responses to senators during the hearings. In a point by point attack, Sen. Franken sticks in some dark art snark:


•    Did you fail to mention Mr. Papadopoulos because you did not believe that Mr. Papadopoulos's discussions with his "connections that could help arrange a meeting between then-candidate Trump and President Putin" did not qualify as being "about the 2016 election''?



[...]



•    If you believe that Mr. Papadopoulos's offer to facilitate "a meeting between
then-candidate Trump and President Putin" does qualify him as an
"intermediar[y] for the Russian government," did you decline to mention Mr.
Papadopoulos' s offer to facilitate a meeting because you do not believe that Mr. Papadopoulos' s repeated efforts-both in person and via emails to high-ranking campaign officials-to "use [his contact's] Russian connections in an effort to arrange a meeting between the Campaign and Russian government officials" did not qualify as a ''continuing exchange of information during the campaign
between Trump's surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government"? If not, why?


And finally:


9.    During the March 2, 2017, press conference at which you announced your recusal from "any existing or future investigations of any matter relating in any way to the campaigns for President of the United States," you were asked about the answer you provided to my January question referencing a "continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump's surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government." You stated, "[i]n retrospect, I should have slowed down and said, 'But I did meet one Russian official a couple of times, and that would be the ambassador."'
•    In your responses to any of the above questions, did you provide answers that, in retrospect, should have been different had you more time to collect your
thoughts? If so, please explain which questions you would have answered
differently, how you would have answered them differently, and why your initial answers were incorrect.


Get him get him get him.