Attorney General Jeff Sessions is at the center of Washington’s scandal-du-jour. The allegation: Sessions lied to Congress about contacts with Russia, which feeds into worries that the Trump campaign was somehow in bed with Vladimir Putin, and may even have had something to do with the hacking of the Democratic National Committee.
At issue are two meetings that Sessions had with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak while the campaign was going on — and while Sessions was a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Sessions says he routinely met with ambassadors from many nations as part of his Senate duties, and that nothing happened. Democrats say that it’s suspicious — and that the fact that he lied to Congress about them makes those meetings more suspicious still.
After perusing these alleged “lies,” I don’t think Democrats have the slam-dunk case that many on social media are claiming. Mostly, the “lies” seem to come down to the difference between written and oral language.
Speaking at the hearing
Never miss a local story.
To see what I mean, consider the substance of these two alleged falsehoods. The first came during Sessions’ confirmation hearing, when he had the following exchange with Sen. Al Franken:
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: Sen. 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.
FRANKEN: Very well.
The second was a written response to a letter from Sen. Patrick Leahy:
LEAHY: 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?
Now, I don’t know whether Sessions has been in contact with Russian officials or not about the election; neither the senator nor Kislyak has chosen to confide this information to me. But let’s assume for the nonce that he wasn’t. Was his response to Patrick Leahy’s letter reasonable? Eminently. It is reasonable even if, in the course of a meeting on some other topic, the ambassador idly asked how the campaign was going.
Sessions was an early Trump surrogate, and it would have been unsurprising for the ambassador to ask about the race in passing; if Sessions then replied with campaign boilerplate little different from what he was saying in public, that is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a meaningful contact with a foreign power. Anyone at the Kremlin could have gotten the same information by turning on CNN.
But what about the exchange with Franken? This was what really seemed to seize the imaginations of Twitter, where cries of “perjury” were flying left and right. Well, OK, mostly left, actually. I don’t think, however, that those charges are going to stick.
The left is attempting to hold the attorney general to a standard of precision that is appropriate for written communication, where we can reflect on preceding context and choose exactly the right word.
Oral language is much looser, because it’s real time. Real time means that we don’t have 20 minutes to puzzle over the exact phrasing that will best communicate our meaning.
One reason that we writers spend so much time thinking about precise wording, and larding our prose with extra paragraphs meant to clarify exactly what we’re talking about, is that language is rife with ambiguity. This is why, at one time, Annapolis cadets were required to take a class in which they would write orders, and their fellow cadets would tear them apart looking for ways that a simple order could be misunderstood.
It’s also one reason so many people get into so much trouble on Twitter: They write like they talk, but stripped of cues like context and facial expression, what they say is very easily taken the wrong way.
Megan McArdle is a columnist for Bloomberg View.