Democrat Smears Against Sessions Are Ill-Fated

[John Reece]

This post consists of analysis and opinion ― not argumentation; so, unless TWeb staff corrects me, I trust that I will not be judged guilty of "argument by web link". I welcome discussion of the information presented here.

"Dems’ Smear Campaign Against Sessions Likely To Backfire" = title of opinion piece by Paul Mirengoff at PowerLine ― from which excerpts are presented here:

It has become clear that, at least until Donald Trump nominates a Supreme Court Justice (and quite possibly beyond that point), congressional Democrats intend to make opposition to Sen. Jeff Sessions’ nomination as Attorney General the centerpiece of their early resistance to the new president. The talking point you will hear and read about the most is alleged racism by Sen. Sessions. However, the true reasons for the opposition are (1) his desire to enforce, rather than ignore and revamp, U.S. immigration law and (2) his color blind vision of civil rights law.

...

Note that both Schumer and Leahy stop well short of calling Sessions a racist. It is clear from their statements that, as I said above, their opposition is based on Sessions’ positions on substantive matters — immigration, civil rights issues, and criminal justice reform (i.e., leniency for felons).

...

Senators like Schumer and Leahy will come under pressure to adopt the tone of Gutierrez, and I wouldn’t bet against them doing so. In fact, Schumer’s statement leaves the racism-alleging door open.

But given the compelling testimony of Jeff Sessions’ African-American law school classmate, along with Sessions’ record as a prosecutor and Senator, his supporters should be able to slam that door [in] Democrats’ face.

Charging Jeff Sessions with racism may be therapeutic for his opponents, but it will neither derail the Senator nor help the Democrats shed the well-earned contempt in which mainstream voters hold them.

[Cerebrum123]

Others might over rule me, but the way I understand it is this wouldn't be argument by weblink. It's usually allowed for an OP to post articles to be brought up for discussion. Usually argument by weblink would go something like this.

Person 1: Claim about X.
Person 2: Why do you believe X ?
Person 1: [insert URL here]

Change it to something like this, and it wouldn't be argument by weblink.

Person 1: Claim about X.
Person 2: Why do you believe X?
Person 1: The article [insert URL here] Shows Y, and Z. Taken all together X is true.

Another one would be.

OP: [insert URL here] What do you guys think about this?

You fall into that last one IMO.

[Starlight]

Why are you obsessed with Jeff Sessions? This is the second thread you've focused on the subject in a short time.

The Trump team looks well on track to appoint the worst administration in US history as they have got a set of lobbyists, incompetents, racists, and his own family, and it's causing me to laugh from a distance on a regular basis, and I look forward to much more laughing at America over the next four years along with the rest of the world. The Democrats are in the unenviable position of being relatively powerless to save their own country from the coming absurdity, so I guess they've got to try to pick and choose their battles on what they perceive as Trump's worst actions. In 1986 a Republican-controlled senate rejected Reagan's appointment of Jeff Sessions, on the apparent grounds that Sessions was too racist. So it's not surprising the Dems see this as low-hanging-fruit as far as opposing him goes.

[John Reece]

Why are you obsessed with Jeff Sessions? This is the second thread you've focused on the subject in a short time.

I love Jeff Sessions, for all the reasons I have already shared thus far.

I quit posting about him in the first thread, because I had come to a good place to stop and switch to a different subject, one that most responders seemed to be more interested in ― that is, the phrase in the title of the OP: "fake news".

When another excellent post regarding Sessions came to my attention, I decided to not reverse my decision to focus henceforth only on the "fake news" element in the original OP ― because it seemed simpler to start a new thread to keep the two different subjects distinct.

[John Reece]

.... In 1986 a Republican-controlled senate rejected Reagan's appointment of Jeff Sessions, on the apparent grounds that Sessions was too racist.

In 1986 the Senate was swayed by Democrat slander against a great and good man who was then as he is now the very antithesis of a racist.

Here is documented evidence of that fact reproduced in the blog of Quinn Hillyer, in an adaptation of an article recently published in the Wall Street Journal

http://quinhillyer.com/how-jeff-sess...l-disparities/

[One Bad Pig]

Why are you obsessed with Jeff Sessions? This is the second thread you've focused on the subject in a short time.

The Trump team looks well on track to appoint the worst administration in US history as they have got a set of lobbyists, incompetents, racists, and his own family, and it's causing me to laugh from a distance on a regular basis, and I look forward to much more laughing at America over the next four years along with the rest of the world. The Democrats are in the unenviable position of being relatively powerless to save their own country from the coming absurdity, so I guess they've got to try to pick and choose their battles on what they perceive as Trump's worst actions. In 1986 a Republican-controlled senate rejected Reagan's appointment of Jeff Sessions, on the apparent grounds that Sessions was too racist. So it's not surprising the Dems see this as low-hanging-fruit as far as opposing him goes.

You're a hoot, Starlight.

[John Reece]

Fred Lucas, writing in The Daily Signal.

Source: The Daily Signal

Hebert testified March 13, 1986, in opposition to President Ronald Reagan’s nomination of Sessions to be a U.S. District Court judge for the Southern District of Alabama.

Part of Hebert’s testimony to the Judiciary Committee included allegations that Sessions, while serving as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Alabama, attempted to block an FBI investigation into a voting rights case in an Alabama county.

Hebert said Sessions bypassed proper procedure by not first informing the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.

Three days later, however, on March 16, Hebert and another lawyer in the Civil Rights Division, Paul A. Hancock, filed affidavits asserting it was a different U.S. attorney, Sessions’ predecessor, who tried to stop the FBI probe.

The matter is significant in exposing unfair attacks on Sessions when Reagan nominated him for a judgeship, now that Trump plans to nominate Sessions for attorney general, said Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow for The Heritage Foundation.

© Copyright Original Source

[John Reece]

Dissecting Slander: The Untold Story of Jeff Sessions’ 1986 ‘Borking’

....

Decades-old racially charged allegations against Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) parroted by the establishment media and a handful of far left Senate Democrats do not hold up under scrutiny, an extensive investigation conducted by Breitbart News has found, by JULIA HAHN

....

This article is the fruit of extensive investigation with numerous links to sources.

Here are the concluding paragraphs:

As Alabama’s elected representative, Sessions eventually came to sit upon the very Senate Judiciary Committee that rejected him— harboring no ill will nor animosity towards the men who opposed him, but instead becoming their partners and forging meaningful relationships with them, such as his friendship with far-left progressive Senator Al Franken.

....

Franken letter to Sessions (scroll down ⏤ way down)


....

With these men, Sessions spearheaded legislative reforms and never once voiced a complaint about their unfair treatment of him. Confident in his own dignity rendered to him by both his faith in God and the people of Alabama whom he represents, Sessions similarly never felt the need to plead his case publicly after all these years — assured in the belief that his own actions would speak louder than the allegations of his opponents.

While corporate media seems willing to allow a handful of partisans to resuscitate the discredited allegations of the ghosts of Democrats past to once again smear the good name of a decent public servant, those who know Sessions best say they are unwilling to “stand idly by” and let history repeat itself.

“Sen. Sessions is a good man and a great man. He has done more to protect the jobs and enhance the wages of black workers than anyone in either house of Congress over the last 10 years,” U.S. Civil Rights Commissioner Peter Kirsanow recently told Breitbart.

“I know him personally and all my encounters with him have been for the greater good of Alabama,” said Sen. Quinton Ross, the Democratic leader of the Alabama Senate who is also African American. “We’ve spoken about everything from civil rights to race relations and we agree that as Christian men our hearts and minds are focused on doing right by all people.”

“I should have volunteered to stand by his side and tell the story of his true character at his confirmation hearing,” Donald V. Watkins, an African American who attended law school with Sessions, wrote on his Facebook page. Watkins recalled how Sessions was the first white student to invite him to join a campus organization, LifeZette reports. “The fact that I did not rise on my own to defend Jeff’s good name and character haunted me for years,” Watkins wrote. “I promised Jeff that I would never stand idly by and allow another good and decent person to endure a similar character assassination if it was within my power to stop it.”

[John Reece]

The Attempt to Bork Sessions Has Begun

From Warner Todd Huston at Breitbart.com: Liberal Groups Coordinate Against Jeff Sessions’ Nomination for Attorney General:

Several liberal groups emerged on Tuesday to launch a coordinated slam against the confirmation of Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions for U.S Attorney General.

The groups, including advocates for legal pot, higher status for gays and for additional race-related regulation, appears to be part of a coordinated campaign against him prior to Senate confirmation hearings on Jan. 10 and Jan. 11.

A group representing the NAACP occupied a room in Sessions’ office in Mobile, Alabama. They sat on the floor, raised the militant black power fist and even tweeted their actions during the day.

A statement of the NAACP’s website promised more coordinated protests.

“As a matter of conscience and conviction, we can neither be mute nor mumble our opposition to Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions becoming Attorney General of the United States. Senator Sessions has callously ignored the reality of voter suppression but zealously prosecuted innocent civil rights leaders on trumped-up charges of voter fraud,” said a letter by NAACP national president and CEO, Cornell William Brooks.

In another broadside against the Senator, more than 1,000 liberal law school professors criticized Sessions in a letter which claimed he would be bad for the LGBT community.

“We are convinced that Jeff Sessions will not fairly enforce our nation’s laws and promote justice and equality in the United States,” the letter states. The professors also claimed that Sessions showed “repeated opposition to legislative efforts to promote the rights of women and members of the LGBTQ community.”

The letter was signed by 1,100 law school professors from 170 law schools across 48 states. It is also set to run as a full-page newspaper ad in Washington D.C.

A group of marijuana activists announced plans to protest Sessions’ advancement to the AG’s office over his past comments against the legalization of pot.

DCMJ.org, the group responsible for spearheading the successful effort to pass a measure to legalize marijuana in the District of Columbia, sent a letter members of Congress to urge them to deny Sessions his position at the Department of Justice.

“We will use all practical means to fight the threat Sessions poses to overturn the will of the voters, ignore science and medical professionals and put black market marijuana back in the hands of international organized crime rings,” the group said in a statement.

Along with these efforts, the liberal Huffington Post recently published two negative pieces on Sessions, one on Tuesday and one on the previous Friday.

Friday’s slam on the Alabama Senator was spurred by a protest from multiple progressive groups who insist Sessions is hiding vital records from the Senate panel that will judge his nomination.

Tuesday’s Huffington Post salvo was written by an executive at People for the American Way who tried to criticize Sessions’ for his willingness to be interviewed by Breitbart.com.

The attempted Borking is destined to fail, because it is based on prejudice and a leftist agenda that has no solid basis in terms of the character, behavior, and historical record of Jess Sessions ― documentation of which has already been posted in this thread, nicely summarized here.

[John Reece]

Pray for Jeff Sessions

J. Christian Adams was a career official in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department who resigned his job in protest when the Obama administration refused to prosecute the Black Panthers and other Black activists who intimidated voters in Pa.

Adams has a current article in Pajamas Media titled Pray for Jeff Sessions; here is the introductory paragraph:

Everyone who believes in prayer should say some for attorney general nominee Jeff Sessions. Senator Sessions is experiencing the full wrath of the worst hateful lies that the modern Left and Democrat Party can conjure. Lies, half-truths, and smears have become the strategy to attack his nomination.

Here are the concluding paragraphs:

I wrote in my book Injustice about this sort of absentee ballot fraud and Patrick's reaction to it:

This argument captures the rotted evolution of the civil rights movement -- any malfeasance that can be connected to Jim Crow, no matter how tenuously, should be excused. If hundreds of black voters are robbed of their vote while [harvester] Patsy Roby marks their ballot, we should avert our gaze because the deed helps blacks get elected.

If Nikki Halbert has her vote stolen by the forgery of [harvester] Carrie Kate Windham, we should temper our outrage, since the deed will help to elect a black sheriff.

If masses of voters surrender their hard-won rights to the notary’s knock at the door, why complain? The machine will elect black candidates to office, and the dreams of oppressed forefathers provide absolution for the notary’s crimes.

I have sent the Judiciary Committee a letter replying to Mr. Patrick:

The right to vote means the right to vote of the voter, not the right of a political machine to force assistance on voters or mark the ballot for them without the voter’s input. And it certainly does not mean the right to alter the ballot of a voter against the will of the voter, which was the central charge brought by Mr. Sessions in the Perry County case.

Mr. Sessions should be praised for pressing these prosecutions -- not criticized.

Meanwhile, reporters like Kirsten West Savali froth forth racial paranoia about Jeff Sessions that approaches farce. She and others continue to cite foes of Sessions, such as Gerry Hebert, who was found by federal courts to exaggerate claims of racial discrimination.

This is the country we now inherit -- where smears, lies and hatred are the new currency of the kingdom. Jeff Sessions could use some prayers to give him strength from everyone who loves and practices these falsehoods.

See documentation in the links available in the text of the full article.

[kiwimac]

Quoting Breitbart does not add gravitas or, indeed, evidence.

[Darth Executor]

Quoting Breitbart does not add gravitas or, indeed, evidence.

buzz off loser

[John Reece]

Published in Washington Examiner:
"Assault on Sessions Will Carry a Price."
By Susan Crabtree • 1/5/17 2:23 PM

These excerpts are supplementary to the OP and thread title.

....

Republican senators are warning Democrats that their efforts to resurrect racism charges against Sen. Jeff Sessions' nomination for attorney general won't derail his confirmation and will only serve to poison the well for future bipartisanship early this Congress.

Since Sessions' nomination, Democrats and liberal civil rights groups have reiterated racism charges from 1986 that sunk the Alabama senator's appointment to a federal judgeship by President Reagan. Sessions' supporters and those who believe some of the charges are overblown have spoken out on his behalf in recent weeks in an attempt to debunk the 30-year-old claims.

Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., who calls Sessions a friend of 18 years even though he doesn't agree with all of his policy positions, has said Democrats' decision to re-level charges of racism against the Alabama senator could poison the well for any chance of cross-party cooperation this year.

"I think it's very questionable what the Democrats are doing," he told the Washington Examiner. "It has a way of pulling our string of comity in the Senate — it's been pulled pretty hard and it looks like we're going to go through some more pulling."

....

Other Republican senators said Democratic efforts to cast Sessions as a racist simply won't work regardless of whom the Democrats call as witnesses because the Alabama senator, a 20-year veteran of the Senate, has worked well with so many Democrats over the years.

"We all know Jeff and have worked with him for a long time," said Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D. "I think you are going to see strong support for him among Republicans but also some Democrats too."

"He's worked with a lot of Democratic members of the Senate for a long time and built up good relations," he added.
....

Sen. John Boozman, R-Ark., is bracing for the worse but still predicts Sessions' confirmation with the support of some Democrats, including Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., who has already said he will support his nomination.

Key Democrats won't say whether they plan to call some of the same witnesses that made racism allegations against Sessions in 1986.

"The witnesses have not been decided at this point, so I don't want to comment," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., told the Washington Examiner.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., also said he couldn't comment on the witnesses Democrats plan to call for hearings scheduled for Jan. 10 and 11 because they are still in flux.

Still, he said, questions about the racism charges from 30 years ago are legitimate to raise considering the important role the new attorney general will play in prioritizing Justice Department prosecutions and actions.

....

After meeting with Sessions late Wednesday afternoon, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who also serves on the judiciary panel, declined to call Sessions a racist but raised the past allegations.

"There were questions raised on race from a lot of different perspectives," he said of Sessions' 1986 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that resulted in denying him the judgeship.


"Certainly there are elements of his background that raise questions … he said to me several times that this was not a concern – that he believed everybody deserves fair treatment. I have more question to ask," Durbin recounted.

Durbin said he and Sessions had discussed a number of issues, including the Voting Rights Act and how he feels about the push from some conservative circles to place further requirements for voting, such as requiring voter IDs.

"We talked about the Voting Rights Act – he voted for it [in 1986] but then when the Supreme Court came out and restricted it, he applauded their decision," Durbin told reporters after the meeting.

....

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on Wednesday signaled that he would vote against Sessions nomination based on the Alabama Republican's consistent support for more immigration restrictions.

[John Reece]

William Smith's Testimony in Support of Jeff Sessions

African-American Hill Staffer: In 20 Years, Sen. Sessions Hasn't Said 'Anything Offensive or Racist', by John Ellis at PJ Media:

Introduction:

After President-elect Donald Trump named Senator Jeff Sessions as his pick for attorney general, liberals began brandishing their pitchforks and lighting their torches. As Trump's inauguration approaches, they've amped up their assault on the character of Senator Sessions. Trotting out decades-old allegations, the left has attempted to brand the senator with the charge of racism. The senator's camp, of course, hasn't sat idle, and has directly confronted and answered the accusations.

The point man for Senator Jeff Sessions' defense is William Smith. Currently Congressman Gary Palmer's chief of staff, Smith previously worked for Sessions as the chief counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee. In fact, William Smith was the first African-American to serve any member of the Senate Judiciary Committee as chief counsel.

....[snip body of interview]

Conclusion:

Smith: The people who are opposing Senator Sessions fear an attorney general who would actually enforce the law, without politicizing the Department of Justice. Over the last 8 years, the Obama administration has simply looked the other way on a number of issues. They know that Senator Sessions is a rule-of-law man, so if they demoralize him now, they will try to make the actions he takes in the future less credible. In addition to him being the first man up for a hearing, there is also fire power because he is from the South and has accusations against him. They've used those before to their benefit, even though they knew the allegations were false, before voting against him, so why not use them again.

Senator Sessions loves the rule of law and believes in equal justice under the law. He believes the role of the attorney general is to enforce even the laws he might not agree with and it is the role of Congress to write law. Senator Sessions is intellectually sound, kind and honest and believes everyone should be treated fairly. When you're in front of the Department of Justice, you want to know that your case is just as important as the next case and that you're going to get the justice you deserve. I think the background of Senator Sessions says you'll get just that, through a fair and honest, not political process.

[John Reece]

Byron York: Sessions Showdown Fizzles

The Senate confirmation hearing for the office of Attorney General began this morning. Sessions aced it without a stumble, and none of his challengers gained any advantage against him. His demeanor was very confident, sometimes intently serious, sometimes mischievously humorous, sometimes over-flowingly joyous.

Byron York's report on the hearing as presented in the Washington Examiner:

Introduction:

There was a lot of talk that the Senate Judiciary Committee's confirmation hearing for attorney general-designate Jeff Sessions would be an epic showdown, with Democrats slashing Sessions's record and protesters turning the historic Russell Senate Office Building hearing room into a war zone.

The buzz in the minutes before the hearing seemed to suggest something was up. A group of protesters staged a brief sit-in in Sessions's office just down the hall. Khizr Khan, center of a white-hot controversy with Donald Trump last summer, showed up, talking with Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy. Al Sharpton came in, after Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson Lee, and others. A brightly-dressed contingent from Code Pink took seats in the center of the spectator session.

But the epic showdown just didn't happen. The Democratic questioners were sluggish and without focus; with one exception, their questions lacked the sting of an opposition party that really wants to bring down a nominee. And the protesters — well, they just didn't bring their A game.

....

Conclusion:

The Sessions hearing isn't over. Sessions won't be present, but on Wednesday, there will be two panels of witnesses to discuss his record. Democratic Sen. Cory Booker will become the first senator to testify against another senator in a confirmation hearing, so that will make some news. The other panel seems likely to be entirely about race.

But the fact is, it's over. There will be far less attention to the panels Wednesday than to Sessions' testimony Tuesday. There will be less media coverage, fewer protesters, less interest in general. Washington's attention will move on.

Without the votes to win, Democrats and the activist groups that support them just didn't bring the energy to the Sessions showdown. The first Senate confirmation battle of the Trump administration goes to Trump.