In his confirmation hearing, Jeff Session said, under oath that he hadn't any communication with the Russians.

This turned out not to be correct

He corrected his testimony, and said, again under oath, that he was talking about as a member of his campaign, not as a senator.

Ignoring that no other members of the committee had these sort of meetings, and that he didn't use senate funds; this through enough doubt on perjury to let it lie.

Now, it seems that there is evidence that he did talk about the Campaign; based on intercepts of the ambassador referring to things he talked about in the meeting.

This basically blows his primary defense out of the water. And, like so many other examples; he appears to have been caught lying, and then caughing lying in his defense about his lying.

However, referring to his senate testimony in June he said:

"Let me state this clearly: I have never met with or had any conversations with any Russians or any foreign officials concerning **any type of interference with any campaign or election**"

Even though the context and nature of what and how he was talking about made it clear he was misleading the committee, do you think that the language bolded will give Sessions an "out" :

IE: will he say "I talked about the campaign, but not INTERFERENCE"?