The question was never whether he should recuse himself. The answer to that was always obvious. The question now is whether he perjured himself.

As a top campaign official, Jeff Sessions was never a credible choice to lead the investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. He completely disqualified himself when he failed to disclose two meetings with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during his confirmation hearing.

Was he was being dishonestly unforthcoming, or plain lying?

Either way, he was, at the very least, being supremely hypocritical.

During the campaign, Sessions was one of the loudest voices calling for a special counsel to be appointed to investigate Hillary Clinton’s emails. He signed a petition calling for one after his predecessor as Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, held a private tête-à-tête with Bill Clinton at a particularly sensitive point in the federal investigation into Clinton’s emails.

Now it’s his own tête-à-tête with the Russian ambassador at a sensitive point in the 2016 campaign that is sparking demands for a special counsel to investigate the unfolding scandal over Russian meddling in the US election. Sessions’ belated recusal will do little to quell them. Democrats are already calling for his resignation. Recusal was the mildest step that could be taken.

First Michael Flynn tried unsuccessfully to disguise the nature of his conversations with Kislyak, falsely denying that they dealt with sanctions imposed on the country. Sessions hid the conversations altogether.

The two men are closely linked. Sessions was the first senator to endorse Trump when he was a long-shot, at best, in the GOP primaries. It was an important establishment seal of approval, even though Sessions, a maverick Alabaman, had a reputation for racial insensitivity. The grateful candidate appointed him the head the campaign’s national security advisory council. After the GOP convention, Flynn joined the Sessions advisory group. After the November election, Sessions’ nomination as Attorney General was one of the new president’s first decisions. So, too, was Flynn’s as national security adviser.

Flynn initially denied talking to the Russian ambassador about the sanctions President Obama levied on Russia because of the election interference. Then, when intelligence intercepts of the conversations were revealed, Flynn was forced to resign. Under oath during his confirmation hearings, Sessions denied having contacts with the Russians during the campaign. On Wednesday, the Washington Post revealed that Sessions spoke with the Russian ambassador twice last year. Then came the news of another Flynn meeting with the Russians, this time joined by Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law. And then contacts with the Russians by two other campaign officials, Carter Page and JD Gordon.

Here are the million dollar questions: who told these men to have these meetings? Why is the top of Trumpworld littered with officials who have hugged the Russian bear? Can we get an honest investigation from the FBI and the Senate Intelligence Committee so the American public begins to get answers about about Russia’s meddling in our political system?

Sessions bungled through his recusal announcement. He said that his response at his confirmation hearing to Senator Al Franken’s question about contacts with Russia “was honest and correct as I understood it at the time.” Nevertheless, he will amend his testimony to include the contacts with Kislyak. He denies willfully misleading his colleagues, but concedes, “In retrospect, I should’ve slowed down and said I did meet with one Russian official a couple times – that would be the ambassador.”

He can’t really expect us to believe that he misunderstood Franken’s question and answered no to having Russian contacts because they concerned his role as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, not the election. “Honest and correct as I understood it at the time,” a statement reminiscent of, “It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is,” the famous Bill Clinton doublespeak during the inquiry that led to the House impeachment vote against him.

Sessions may come to regret the many times he railed against Bill Clinton for lying under oath and using the p-word – perjury – in relation to both Clintons.

Even if, as he claims, he replied no to Senator Franken’s query because his contacts with the Russian ambassador involved Senate Armed Services Committee business, not the campaign, Sessions should have disclosed them.

Would Sessions have dared lie to his colleagues during the confirmation hearings? Or did he not understand the question?

The man’s mind seemed to be razor sharp in all other respects. He recalled details about cases he had prosecuted as a US Attorney 30 years ago in order to knock down persistent claims that he is racially insensitive. I covered his failed confirmation to a judgeship in 1986 when he became only the second judicial nominee in the past 50 years to be denied a judgeship by the Senate. A deputy of his wrote the Senate to say Sessions had warned him to be careful how he talked to white people and said disparaging things about the NAACP. Although the Senate Judiciary Committee was then GOP-controlled, as it is now, two moderate Republicans blocked Sessions. There are practically none of that species left.

So it’s up to the Democrats to press on. Both congressional minority leaders, Representative Nancy Pelosi and Senator Charles Schumer, have called on Sessions to resign as Attorney General.

For his part, President Trump calls the Russia imbroglio “a witch hunt.” It’s a hunt for sure – for the truth.