In an interview with Tucker Carlson, he moved from a flat denial of speaking to Russia's ambassador Sergey Kislyak about the election to saying he doesn't "recall any discussion of the campaign in any significant way" during talks with Kislyak.

The day before, his response was:

I never met with any Russian officials to discuss issues of the campaign. I have no idea what this allegation is about. It is false.”

Is there anyone in the Trump campaign who didn't meet with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak? We've now got Kushner together with Flynn, Sessions, Carter Page (warning video link) and J.D. Gordon. I'm surprised Rudy Giuliani isn't in the mix yet.

The Ambassador gets around. He was at the RNC, at Trump's inauguration, at Trump's congressional speech this week, and at Donald Trump's first foreign policy speech on the campaign trail in April, 2016, where he sat in the front row. (Sessions also attended, but there's no indication as of now they spoke to each other.)

Here's a video of Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, speaking on Russia-U.S. Relations on November 10, 2016 (two days after the election) at the Stanford Institute for International Studies. At the beginning, the moderator says demand for attendance was so high they had to change rooms.

The Wall St. Journal reported Wednesday that AG Jeff Sessions' contacts with Russia while serving as an advisor to the Trump campaign were the subject of an investigation last summer that may not yet be resolved.

I don't think his response to Al Franken is the only comment at issue during his confirmation process. In addition to his oral testimony, Senators submitted written questions to Sessions. Sen. Patrick Leahy asked Sessions(p. 26 of 38):

e. Several of the President-Elect’s nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day? (emphasis in original)

[Sessions'] RESPONSE: No.

As to the Al Franken answer, to put it in context, here's the entire q and a between Franken and Sessions on Russia at the 1/10/17 confirmation hearing (via Lexis.com)

FRANKEN: Senator, last Friday the Director of National Intelligence, we covered this a little, representing 16 agencies released a declassified intelligence report stating in quote, "We assessed Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election," unquote. And yet despite the consensus among our intelligence agencies, President-elect Trump has remained persistently skeptical during the first presidential debate. He wandered a lot whether the responsible party could be China or, quote, somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds.

Last month he called reports of Russian hacking quote, "ridiculous," and quote "another excuse," for the democratic loss. He said quote, "it could be somebody sitting on -- in a bed some place." Again, I mean, they have no idea. And even after the release of the declassified report, the president has really yet to acknowledge Russia's role in the hacking. You said earlier that you accept the FBI's conclusion. To my mind, it's absolutely extraordinary to see a president-elect so publicly refuting and without evidence, so far as I can tell, the assessment of our intelligence agencies. Why do you think president-elect Trump has been so unwilling to acknowledge Russian involvement in the hacking?

SESSIONS: I did mean to indicate I respect the FBI and I respect the fact that if they give a conclusion they believe is accurate, but I'm not able to comment on the president-elect's comments about it.

FRANKEN: OK. CNN has just published a story and I'm telling you this about a news story that's just been published. I'm not expecting you to know whether or not it's true or not. But CNN just published a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president -elect last week that included information that quote, "Russian operatives claimed to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump." These documents also allegedly say quote, "There was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump's surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government." (My emphasis)

Now, 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? (my emphasis)

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 didn't have -- did not have communications with the Russians, and I'm unable to comment on it. (my emphasis)

FRANKEN: Very well. Without divulging sensitive information, do you know about this or know what compromising personal and financial information the Russians claim to have?

SESSIONS: Senator Franken, allegations get made about candidates all the time and they've been made about president-elect Trump a lot sometimes. Most of them, virtually all of them have been proven to be exaggerated and untrue. I would just say to you that I have no information about this matter. I have not been in on the classified briefings and I'm not a member of the intelligence committee, and I'm just not able to give you any comment on it at this time.

FRANKEN: OK. Totally fair.

The transcript is 202 pages, and there's many more references to Russia. Sen. Whitehouse asked Sessions about Russia (although not his contacts) in this exchange:

WHITEHOUSE: As you know, the United States has retaliated against Russia for its interference with the 2016 elections. In Europe, Baltic States, Germany and Italy have raised concerns of Russia meddling in their country's elections.

I know this has been touched on before, but I want to make sure it's clear. Will the Department of Justice and the FBI under your administration be allowed to continue to investigate the Russian connection, even if it leads to the Trump campaign and Trump interests and associates? (my emphasis)

And can you assure us that in any conflict between the political interests of the president and the interests of justice, you will follow the interests of justice, even if your duties require the investigation and even prosecution of the president, his family and associates? (my emphasis)

SESSIONS: Well, Senator, why ask? If the laws violated and they can be prosecuted then of course you'll have to handle that in an appropriate way. (my emphasis)

I would say that they problem may turn out be, as in the Chinese hacking of our -- hundreds of thousands of -- maybe millions of records, has to be handled at a political level. And I do think it's appropriate for a nation who feels that they've been hacked and that information has been improperly used to retaliate against those actions.

Shorter version: Evasive and non-responsive.

The hearing also showed the prescience of Sen. Dick Durbin, questioning former Bush AG, Michael Mukasey, who was testifying on behalf of Sessions:

General Mukasey, during the course of this hearing, I sense that there is an evolving context relative to Russia and the involvement of Russia in the election. Many of the questions we've posed to Senator Sessions related to his values, his votes, and now I think there's a growing concern of a question that you've addressed yourself, too.

I'm going to ask you to speak to again, about his role if he becomes attorney general vis-a-vis the White House, the president. We now have allegations, unconfirmed, relative to Russian activity relating to the president-elect. As I said, alleged, unconfirmed, and Director Comey of the FBI saying at this point he would not talk about whether there was an ongoing investigation relative to Russia's role in the election. So can you give me some clarity?

[Response not responsive, he tries again]

....DURBIN: Can I ask you another question related to that? Investigations undertaken by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, what authority does the attorney general have over the commencement or the conclusion of those investigations?

MUKASEY: The attorney general, theoretically, is -- is -- The FBI director reports to the attorney general. I say theoretically because there're [sic]-- occasionally one gets the idea that the attorney general is independent. If we had more time, I could tell you the story, but it will have to wait until (inaudible) meeting. The FBI director works for the attorney general. [<my emphasis]

DURBIN: So, I guess my question, it -- Repeatedly Senator Sessions has called for attorneys general to recuse themselves rather than participate in investigations with political ramifications -- most recently called for Attorney General Lynch to appoint a special counsel for Hillary Clinton in an op-ed that he wrote on November 5 of last year.

I am trying to work this through. I asked him pointedly whether he would recuse himself if there were any accusations against the president-elect once he becomes president or other people involved in the Trump campaign, and he basically answered me that he was going to take this on a case-by-case basis.

If he has the authority and power to stop an investigation at the FBI, is that what you're telling me?

MUKASEY: Yes.

DURBIN: So, if there is an investigation underway, he could stop it if he wished?

MUKASEY: Yes. (my emphasis)

Durbin also questioned Sessions directly about potential recusal over Russia:

DURBIN: This morning, before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Director Comey of the FBI was testifying on the question of investigating the Russian involvement in this last election. And he was asked if there was any ongoing investigation about contacts between Moscow and the Russians and any presidential campaigns. And he refused to answer, said he wasn't going to discuss any ongoing investigations publicly.

I would like to ask you a question related to recusal. You stated earlier today that you had made the decision, and you haven't given us real background on it, but made the decision that you would recuse yourself from any prosecutions involving Hillary Clinton or the Clinton campaign and e-mails. And then I understand -- I wasn't present but Senator Blumenthal asked you for some other hypotheticals as to whether you'd recuse yourself on an emolument question or some other things, and you said you'd take it on a case-by-case basis.

What if, hypothetical, same as Hillary Clinton, we are dealing with an investigation that involves the Trump campaign or anyone in the Trump campaign, would you recuse yourself as attorney general from that prosecution? (my emphasis)

SESSIONS: My response to the -- my recusal issue was because I'd made public comments about it that could be construed as having an opinion on the final judgment that would have to be rendered. I don't think I made any comments on this issue that go to that, but I would review it and try to do the right thing as to whether or not it should stay within the jurisdiction of the attorney general or not.

DURBIN: It would strike me that this is an obvious case for a special prosecutor if it involves a campaign leading to a candidate who selected you as the attorney general. Wouldn't an abundance of caution suggest that you wouldn't want any questions raised about your integrity in that type of prosecution?

SESSIONS: Senator Durbin, I think it would be incumbent upon anybody who's holding the office of attorney general at that time to carefully think his way through that, to seek the advice and to follow the normal or appropriate special prosecutor standards. And so I would intend to do that. But I have not expressed an opinion on the merits of those issues, to my knowledge.

Sessions said yesterday that his discussions with the Russian ambassador were about "normal things", including the Ukraine, although he couldn't remember specifics.

Trump denied he was responsible for the change in the RNC platform on the Ukraine. So did Paul Manafort. But now his national security at the time, JD Gordon, who attended a meeting with the Russian Ambassador at the RNC tells Jim Acosta that Trump ordered it and it had been discussed at an earlier meeting attended and led by Jeff Sessions at Trump's unfinished Washington Hotel.

So at the time of the RNC, Trump said he had nothing to do with the change of platform on the Ukraine, but now J.D. Gordon, his National Security Advisor at the time, who attended a meeting with the Ambassador, said Trump told them that's what he wanted back in March, at a meeting led by Sessons.

Sessions said yesterday he has no idea why the Russian Ambassador would want to discuss the Ukraine with him. Really?

More: Vox explores how Sessions' views on Russia changed after joining Trump's campaign, and the WSJ reports Sessions paid for his trip to the RNC where he met the Russian ambassador with campaign funds.

Even Donald Trump Jr. is taking heat today, for his paid speech in Paris in October, 2016 with a pro-Russian think tank that was holding talks on Syria. The group is led by a French billionaire named Fabien Baussart, with "strong financial ties" to Russia. The talks were billed a means of getting Russia and the U.S. to agree on Syria. (It's hard to imagine anyone more supremely unqualified to discuss Russia, the U.S. and Syria than Donald Trump, Jr.) Here's a photo of him at the talks from the group's website I saved in October, when I was thinking of writing about it and decided it was too absurd.