The acknowledgment by Attorney General Jeff Sessions that he had met with Russia’s ambassador to the United States touched off a frenzy by major media organizations to link the two men to something nefarious.

The New York Times put together a timeline demonstrating proximity in time between events involving Sessions and Russian covert activity. Axios published a similar timeline. The Washington Post produced a graphic showing “known or possible links between Team Trump, Russia,” including Sessions.

“We now know this was a political hit job.”

Missing was any evidence — or even an allegation — of wrongdoing or unethical behavior by Sessions regarding Russia.

“We now know this was a political hit job,” Media Research Center President Brent Bozell said in a statement.

Sessions, of course, could have avoided the headache he now faces had he not told Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) during his confirmation hearing that he had not met with “the Russians” during the presidential campaign.

Some Democrats have alleged perjury. Sessions has explained that he was answering the question in the context Franken asked it — “continuing exchange of information” between campaign surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government. Sessions maintains that he made a distinction between his role as a campaign surrogate and a senator.

The larger, more serious question is whether Sessions did anything improper in meeting with Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Lacking evidence, The Times, The Post, and others relied on insinuations.

The Post graphic draws a red line between Sessions and Kislyak, part of a larger web of connections that looks ominous. The story claims the “relationship” between Sessions and Kislyak is “well-established by now.”

The Washington Post produced a web of alleged links between Team Trump and Russian officials — including a “relationship” that seems to consist of two meetings, one of which hardly can be called a meeting.

But the “relationship” seems to consist of two encounters. The first was at an event hosted by The Heritage Foundation outside of the Republican National Convention in July. The previous administration’s State Department helped facilitate invitations to Kislyak and dozens of other ambassadors. Sessions contends to chatted with Kislyak and other envoys as he mingled. No one has challenged that account.

Then in September, Sessions met with Kislyak in his office.

Who do you think would win the Presidency?

By completing the poll, you agree to receive emails from LifeZette, occasional offers from our partners and that you've read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement.

“They’re not asserting any kind of relationship,” said Rich Noyes, director of research at the Media Research Center. “But they’re putting these pieces out there for people to make these connections. It’s sort of the innuendo effect.”

No one has alleged that Sessions and Kislyak conspired to commit a crime or negotiated a quid pro quo involving help for the Trump campaign in exchange for lifting sanctions. Even The Post acknowledges in the story that “the existence of that relationship does not in any way imply wrongdoing by Sessions. It’s just part of the network we’re establishing.”

The New York Times visualized the story by publishing a timeline over two columns. The left-hand side is labeled “Sessions’s actions,” and the right is called “What else was happening.”

The Sessions side highlights the then-Alabama senator’s decision to endorse Trump on Feb. 28, 2016, and Trump’s appointment of Sessions to lead a national security advisory committee. It references the July 18 Heritage event.

On the right side, The Times references the June 14 announcement by the Democratic National Committee that its computer system had been hacked and the July 22 publication of DNC emails by WikiLeaks.

[lz_related_box id=”356383″]

Got that? The DNC suffers a hack. Then Sessions meets with Kislyak. Then WikiLeaks posts stolen emails.

Or how about this? Then-President Obama tells Russian President Vladimir Putin on September 5 to “cut it out” or face “serious consequences.” Then three days later, Kislyak meets with Sessions in his Senate office. Then on October 7, the Obama administration accuses the Russian government of interfering in the campaign.

The Times does not accuse Sessions of colluding with Russia on any of these activities, because there is no evidence to support it. It lets readers jump to those conclusions if they want to.

The Times could have done the same thing with virtually any public figure. For instance, then-Secretary of State John Kerry met with Putin on July 14. Note that is just four days before The Heritage Foundation event.

Kerry met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on August 26. Then on September 9 — a day after Sessions met with Kislyak — Kerry and Lavrov announced a ceasefire in Syria.

Insinuations that Kerry was doing anything improper would be preposterous. As secretary of state, he was trying to get Russian cooperation on a thorny issue in the Middle East. That was the announced substance of Kerry’s meetings with Russian officials, and there is no reason to believe otherwise. But one can make the same proximity observations between those meetings and other events.

And by the way, if the DNC computer hack was such a watershed event that it raises suspicions about Sessions talking with the ambassador, why did it not scuttle ceasefire talks between Kerry and Putin the following month? Or followup meetings in August and September?

But those are questions for another day.