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.

[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.

[John Reece]

....

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

Here are the concluding paragraphs:

Franken letter to Sessions (scroll down ⏤ way

[John Reece]

The Attempt to Bork Sessions Has Begun

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.

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:

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

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

These excerpts are supplementary to the OP and thread title.

[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:

....

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.