Just watched an hour of the Sessions confirmation hearing

[PurplePride92]

First link you posted I believe.

 

I see it. I lumped it in with the disgrace to his race comment that he walked back. I see what I did.

[Bluegrasscard]

Have not been able to follow this one too much but it seems someone was doing a hatchet job in the 80s because the really believed some poorly worded joking or they had some other agenda and used the race card. Either way this seems to be another all-but-entirely-baseless smear. A google of 'sessions smear' pulls up 'defense' articles. Seems January 5th was the main day for these type articles (independent journalism - right or left - is so rarely independent any more).

 

 

 

Politico article about the past...

 

The Sessions Smear - POLITICO Magazine

 

Barry Kowalski was a trial lawyer from the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department at the time. He recalled in 1986 Senate testimony that he was explaining to Sessions how it was difficult to nail down what the Klansmen were doing in a house one night because they had smoked marijuana and their memories were fuzzy. It was then that Sessions said he used to support the Klan until he learned they smoked pot.

 

It never pays to try to explain a joke to people who are humorless out of professional obligation, but the point of the mordant comment was that Sessions was referring to the very least of the Klan’s sins. In his Senate testimony, Sessions compared it to saying he opposed Pol Pot for wearing alligator shoes. This is how the line was understood by rational human beings who heard it at the time.

 

Kowalski told the committee that prosecutors working such a gruesome case sometimes “resort to operating room humor and that is what I considered it to be.” Another DOJ lawyer, Albert Glenn, said, “It never occurred to me that there was any seriousness to it.”

 

 

Kowalski, by the way, told the committee that Sessions was absolutely committed to nailing the killers and he became convinced that “he was eager to see that justice was done in the area of criminal civil rights prosecutions.”

 

 

The only person who professed to take the line as a serious endorsement of the non-pot-smoking Klan was Sessions’ main accuser, a black prosecutor in his office, Thomas Figures, whose credibility should be in doubt based on this tendentious testimony alone. (Figures was indicted in 1992 for bribing a witness and died in 2015.)

 

Besides Figures, the other main witness against Sessions was yet another DOJ lawyer, Gerald Hebert, who testified that Sessions said “racially insensitive” things, although these conversations were ambiguous, as well.

[Hatz]

The only person who professed to take the line as a serious endorsement of the non-pot-smoking Klan was Sessions’ main accuser, a black prosecutor in his office, Thomas Figures, whose credibility should be in doubt based on this tendentious testimony alone. (Figures was indicted in 1992 for bribing a witness and died in 2015.)

 

 

For better or worse, Figures was "indicted" but acquitted. That means he was proven innocent in a court of law.

 

And his testimony had more to do with Sessions referring to him as "Boy" on more than a few moments.

 

Personally I hope all of Trump's picks get in. I've long believed to give the new movement the people they need to cast their vision and implement their ideas. Then let the ideas thrive or die. :thumb:

[Jumper_Dad]

For better or worse, Figures was "indicted" but acquitted. That means he was proven innocent in a court of law.

And his testimony had more to do with Sessions referring to him as "Boy" on more than a few moments.

 

Personally I hope all of Trump's picks get in. I've long believed to give the new movement the people they need to cast their vision and implement their ideas. Then let the ideas thrive or die. :thumb:

 

Not really, just means he wasn't convicted...Zimmerman wasn't proven innocent, he just wasn't convicted.

[Hatz]

Not really, just means he wasn't convicted...Zimmerman wasn't proven innocent, he just wasn't convicted.

 

Point taken.

 

However if I'm taken to trial, and I am found not guilty under the law, I hope that it means "I'm not guilty under the law." :thumb:

[LIPTON BASH]

Supposedly he prosecuted blacks for "voter fraud" when they were trying to help get blacks and other minorities registered, but ignored whites that were doing the same. Apparently what these guys were doing was protected under the Civil Rights Act, but he went after them anyways.

 

That's one thing I came across from doing a quick search.

 

He actually prosecuted black leaders at the compliant of other black citizens who complained they were running a dirty and corrupt campaign against them. The old guard in the black community there did not want the new people running.

[Clyde]

Rep Price bought stock in a biomed company a few days before he introduced legislation that financially benefited said company.

[PurplePride92]

Rep Price bought stock in a biomed company a few days before he introduced legislation that financially benefited said company.

 

 

Isn't he the cat that is going to fix he ACA?

[Clyde]

Isn't he the cat that is going to fix he ACA?

 

 

Yes.

[LIPTON BASH]

Rep Price bought stock in a biomed company a few days before he introduced legislation that financially benefited said company.

 

Interested in conflict of interest again. Interesting.

[PurplePride92]

Interested in conflict of interest again. Interesting.

 

Absolutely. Because Trump supporters insist that these cabinet appointees are doing this for their love of the country and not their bank accounts. :lol2: :lol2:

[Clyde]

Interested in conflict of interest again. Interesting.

 

Your point, please?

[LIPTON BASH]

Absolutely. Because Trump supporters insist that these cabinet appointees are doing this for their love of the country and not their bank accounts. :lol2: :lol2:

 

I'm not naive enough to think every human on the planet does not have an ulterior motive. My hope is with people like this who have a history of winning it will be good for all of us.

[LIPTON BASH]

Your point, please?

 

I've stated in every thread I do not want conflict of interests regardless of party. I just find an interesting how important it is to you now that the person who won the election isn't who you had in mind.

[PurplePride92]

I'm not naive enough to think every human on the planet does not have an ulterior motive. My hope is with people like this who have a history of winning it will be good for all of us.

 

It could possibly be good for us but my concern is that they will make sure things work for them before it works for us and that is it works for them and doesn't work for us they will still do it. We already see that ACA isn't going anywhere. It's just going to be tweaked. Which IMO is shameful.