HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Sessions Omits Decades of...

Sat Dec 31, 2016, 01:43 PM

Sessions Omits Decades of Records for Hearings

Source: Political Wire



December 31, 2016 By Taegan Goddard

“President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for attorney general, Jeff Sessions, is withholding decades’ worth of records from his career ahead of his Senate confirmation hearings early next month, according to an exhaustive report issued by progressive advocacy groups,” the Huffington Post reports.

“He left out major details from his years as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Alabama, from 1981 to 1993; as attorney general of Alabama, from 1995 to 1997; and as a first-term U.S. senator, from 1997 to 2002. The gaps encompass the time, for example, when Sessions was nominated to be a federal judge in 1986 ― and then rejected after being deemed too racist.”

###

Read more: https://politicalwire.com/2016/12/31/sessions-omits-decades-records-hearings/

21 replies, 4942 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 21 replies Author Time Post
Reply Sessions Omits Decades of Records for Hearings (Original post)
DonViejo Dec 2016 OP
MurrayDelph Dec 2016 #1
cstanleytech Dec 2016 #2
yeoman6987 Dec 2016 #4
Kingofalldems Dec 2016 #5
pnwmom Dec 2016 #10
BumRushDaShow Dec 2016 #7
Kingofalldems Dec 2016 #9
BumRushDaShow Dec 2016 #11
appal_jack Jan 2017 #21
DK504 Dec 2016 #12
Kingofalldems Dec 2016 #16
Danmel Dec 2016 #8
Turbineguy Dec 2016 #3
Sunlei Dec 2016 #6
hughee99 Dec 2016 #13
Sunlei Dec 2016 #14
hughee99 Dec 2016 #15
Initech Dec 2016 #17
sarcasmo Dec 2016 #18
tenorly Dec 2016 #19
Rex Dec 2016 #20

Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sat Dec 31, 2016, 01:58 PM

1. But, but

If he told the whole truth, he wouldn't get the job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MurrayDelph (Reply #1)

Sat Dec 31, 2016, 02:03 PM

2. He could set a cross on fire in front of where Obama is moving with his wife after the election

and the Republicans would still probably confirm him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 31, 2016, 02:32 PM

4. I really wish Reid kept the rules in place

 

50 votes are to easy to get. We could stop many of trumps picks with 60. Now I bet only Secretary of State is stopped.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 31, 2016, 02:45 PM

5. What the hell does that have to do with Sessions?

Sessions covering up his racism and you yeoman6987 attack a Democrat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kingofalldems (Reply #5)

Sat Dec 31, 2016, 04:40 PM

10. If we still had the filibuster intact, we could use it against him. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 31, 2016, 03:22 PM

7. If they hadn't changed the rules

Democrats wouldn't have garnered the majority in 9 of the 13 U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, nor would Obama's appointees get any more up or down confirmation votes post-2013. I.e., because Turtle's bullshit "1 term President" promise failed, he was going to see to it that Obama would be able to do nothing at all the 2nd term. See my post here -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1646939

and notably this part (from a New Yorker mag article) -

When Obama took office, Republican appointees controlled ten of the thirteen circuit courts of appeals; Democratic appointees now constitute a majority in nine circuits. Because federal judges have life tenure, nearly all of Obama’s judges will continue serving well after he leaves office.


And as a sidenote, I believe the "hold" is still a rule and that is how much of the Democratic legislation and/or Obama's appointees were blocked. I remember jackass Coburn holding up the Pigford II pay out (to black farmers who had been discriminated against for subsidies and who missed the original Pigford payout due to lack of knowledge of availability of it, etc) using a "hold". It wasn't until something like 6 months after that when the checks finally started going out after he finally released the hold. A hold can be tag-teamed among the Senators as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #7)

Sat Dec 31, 2016, 04:19 PM

9. The poster brings this up quite often.

The message being we will pay the price. Reid did the right thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kingofalldems (Reply #9)

Sat Dec 31, 2016, 04:41 PM

11. Schumer and crew are going to need to have an intimate knowledge

of all the intricacies of the rules and utilize any esoteric ones when necessary in any case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #7)

Sun Jan 1, 2017, 01:25 AM

21. Yes, indeed. Thank you.

 

Reid's tweaking of Senate rules to ensure some governmental function (rather than the none which McTurtle would have preferred) is a bright spot on his Senate leadership. Having accomplished what they could while Obama was President will hopefully buffer some of the worst Trump offenses for years to come.

I can't understand yeoman6987 or anyone else who is still saying "If only we'd been a little nicer to the Republicans then, they would not be so mean/unfair/dogmatic now." The extreme corporatist right wing is just plain mean, unfair, and dogmatic no matter what. A little more rw ass-kissing will not change that one bit. Whether or not Reid had changed rules in 2013, rules will be set to Republicans' advantage in 2017.

Politics is hardball. Your post shows cognizance of that fact, BRDS. People who think otherwise need to get out of the way.

-app

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 31, 2016, 05:19 PM

12. No offense but,

Reid has been one of the most ineffectual "leaders" the Senate has ever seen. I am sorry to say that he has not stood up for us and been playing politics that haven't been very progressive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 31, 2016, 07:32 PM

16. Wow. Racist Sessions withholds information and you attack Sen. Reid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 31, 2016, 03:34 PM

8. That would seal the deal for them

Sick puppies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sat Dec 31, 2016, 02:04 PM

3. Wait, wait.... don't tell me....

he was a librul for a while.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sat Dec 31, 2016, 02:46 PM

6. Republicans are the Kings of lies and hiding truth. Alabama now blocks about a third of voters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #6)

Sat Dec 31, 2016, 06:04 PM

13. A third of voters? One in three are blocked?

Link please!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #13)

Sat Dec 31, 2016, 06:53 PM

14. Look up voting rights in Alabama and see how people are excluded from voting.

In an old south state some demographics have less rights than others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #14)

Sat Dec 31, 2016, 07:32 PM

15. I did, that's why I was aksing for a link to your "1 in 3" stat.

Alabama has about 4.8 million people, roughly 23% of which are under 18.
http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/01

So about 3.7 million people in Alabama were old enough to vote.

According to this, 3.3 million people are registered to vote in AL as of November, 2016 (which seems very high)
http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/11/are_99_percent_of_alabama_vote.html

But based on the 1 in 3 number, we should have about 4.4 million people who should be able to vote in a state with 4.8 million people including 1.1 million people under 18? And this isn't even counting anyone who's not eligible for the usual reasons (like not being a US citizen) or anyone who chose not to register to vote.

I've seen numbers to suggest that 1 of 13 have been excluded, or that the total number could have approached 300k (and don't get me wrong, that's 300K too many, but "1 in 3" doesn't sound like it's possible no matter how you add it all up.

That's I was curious where you got that number.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sat Dec 31, 2016, 07:41 PM

17. Imagine if Hillary's SOS nominee tried this. The GOP would be screaming for his / her head!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sat Dec 31, 2016, 09:17 PM

18. The ministry of defense has wiped the past clean for nominee Sessions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarcasmo (Reply #18)

Sat Dec 31, 2016, 11:16 PM

19. Soon to be renamed 'Ministry of Truth'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sat Dec 31, 2016, 11:32 PM

20. No way, there is nobody that is too racist for the GOP. It is one of their unwritten

 

rules. I am surprised there is any question by the GOP, he should get the nod from like minded white men.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread