Not just the sessions hearing, but that freaky "cabinet meeting".

NO loyalty to the Constitution,to the American PEOPLE, NUTHIN...but frickin trump.

BIZARRE, Y'all.
Not MY president, ever.

I am still wondering how this is possible after 8 years of competent, sane leadership.

This S.O.B. is going to destroy America to satisfy his sick racist obsession.

Anytime these crooks (is it time to call them that or should I wait a couple of weeks?) are questioned, it is much of a defence to use this old chestnut? This pseudo-Gump is supposed to be one of the finest legal minds in the country and in charge of your justice system.
He sounds like someone in an Alzheimers Workshop or someone who had studied the later Reagan on an off-day a little too closely.

What would he say to someone he was prosecuting in the past who came out with this answer?

Jesus wept.

He's potentially involved in the investigation.

Let's say he was briefed on something he has no say over and must have no say over.

Expressing too much interest by a boss to his subordinate, saying "I hope" or expressing wishes over how it should proceed, offering suggestions or even having the wrong facial expressions could be taken as an attempt to influence. Not good in a boss, but even worse in which the boss has explicitly said he will have no say. And since he might be queried, he shouldn't know much about.

Moreover, if he's fully briefed on what's happening when he's uninvolved, who could he tell? Depends who you talk to and what you think is appropriate. We've already been told by a lot of people that leaking confidential information from an on-going investigation to the NYT or WaPo is legitimate and healthy. If Sessions told those under investigation what the thinking was about their involvement by investigators, how would that be any worse? Call it a "leak" and it's suddenly moral. (Or insist that leaks must be punished, at least when it's the right people, and you wind up with a carefully crafted legal enforcement bias. Bias was wrong 100 years ago, bias is wrong now. Whatever the moral justification, or morally deficient justification, provided.)

Now, perhaps the investigators wouldn't share most of the information he had. In that case, the briefings would be brief. Sessions: "So, what's up with the investigation?" Investigator: "Well, we met. Can't tell you how much or what we talked about. Or even if we've reached a conclusion. But we're investigating." Sessions, affectless: "I see. Anything else you can report?" Investigator: "Nope." Sessions: "Well, this was a meeting. See you next week. Will two minutes be enough again next time?" Investigator: "Yes."

I'm not even sure that repeating what's in the newspapers is okay. People were really bent out of shape during the Plame matter when some official basically confirmed what was already published. The laws regulating classified information include non-confirmation, but that's officially classified. I'd vaguely imagine protecting confidential information and maintaining due process works about the same.