I totally agree if he had been upfront about it all, and even with his answers this should vindicate him about that meeting, but if the photo of him in the same room existed, acknowledge it, say "we may have met at the reception, but that's not out of the ordinary at all" and move on.

But no, he went with the "I'm totally hiding something route" when he wasn't. Good job dude.

Here's some things he said about it. In light of a photo showing them in the same room, which probably would take him and his lawyers a few minutes to find, which is better, "Ambassadors go to these events, I probably met him there or saw him but that's all" or the following:

Whether I attended a reception where the Russian ambassador was also present is entirely beside the point of this investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 campaign.

and

I would have gladly have reported the meeting and encounter that may have occurred and some say occurred in the Mayflower if I had remembered it or if it actually occurred, which I don't remember that it did.

I mean come on. If he instead of answering things with that rambling "I have no idea what the hell happened" had looked this up and answered "I'm aware he was there, I met a lot of people, we may have said hello beforehand but that's all" then he's totally vindicated.

instead those answers sound like A.) I'm being super specific to hide a meeting (also referenced, I didn't meet with him before or after, which sounds like "I met with him during") and B.) I'm an incompetent buffoon, which some people say, and may or may not be true, depending on you're definition of buffoon is.

It's just frustrating that here we have some visual proof that he's telling the damn truth and he can't manage to be up front about it.

Not that it forgives twisting things to make him look like he's lying, he did that pretty well himself.