Department of Justice

Porn, Abortion, Muslims, and Hillary Clinton: Jeff Sessions Confirmation Hearings Begin

As attorney general, Sessions says he will prosecute "obscenity" and recuse himself from any Clinton investigations.

|

The Jeff Sessions Show
MICHAEL REYNOLDS/EPA/Newscom

The Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings into Sen. Jeff Sessions' (R-Ala.) nomination for attorney general began this morning with the nominee being peppered with questions about topics including crime, abortion, porn, mandatory minimums, racism, and potential future investigations into Hillary Clinton.

The hearings, which expect to be contentious, began with the typical formal pleasantries and some broad strokes about policy. There were also a few interruptions from members of Code Pink and others dressed as Ku Klux Klan members before both were escorted from the room.

In his introduction, Committee Chairman Sen. Check Grassley (R-Iowa) lauded Sessions for his record of public service, but expressed concern over what he characterized as the Justice Department not enforcing existing immigration laws. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) testified on behalf of Sessions, praising his "integrity" and decrying accusations of racism leveled against him.

In Sessions' opening statement he cited recent FBI statistics showing an increase in violent crime from 2015 to 2016, but failed to note that the U.S. murder rate is at about where it was in 2008, just before Barack Obama took office, and still less than half of where it was in the 1980s and early 1990s.

Grassley asked Sessions about critical comments he made during the presidential campaign about Hillary Clinton and the FBI investigation into her use of a private email server. Sessions conceded that the statements he made while serving as a Donald Trump campaign surrogate put "my objectivity in question," and he promised to recuse himself from any prospective investigation into the Clinton or the Clinton Foundation if confirmed as attorney general.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) focused on Sessions' lack of support for hate crime legislation in her opening statement, and later asked Sessions about the Justice for Victims of Sex Trafficking Act of 2015, and whether he would deny federal funds provided by the act to pay for abortions for victims of rape in sex trafficking. The staunchly pro-life Sessions assured Feinstein that his DOJ would defer to Congress, which passed this law. Feinstein reiterated that the funds in this law are not subject to the Hyde Amendment, which prevents federal funds being used for abortion except to save the life of the mother.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) praised Sessions' introduction of a resolution demanding federal obscenity laws be "vigorously enforced throughout the United States." Hatch also cited the Utah legislature's resolution declaring pornography as a "public health problem," and asked if Sessions' still believes anti-obscenity laws should be "vigorously enhanced." Sessions said he would consider reconstituting a special Justice Department unit to prosecute obscenity laws.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) grilled Sessions about his vote against a resolution which opposed the U.S. barring anyone from entering the country based on their religion, something Trump had proposed with regards to Muslims during the campaign. Leahy asked the nominee if he agreed with President-elect Trump's stated position, but Sessions pivoted, saying that Trump has since indicated his focus would be on "strong vetting" of people wishing to enter the U.S. from "countries that have a history of terrorism." Sessions also clarified that while he opposes blanket bans on certain religions, he says he voted against the bill because, in his view, certain religious views should be fair game in the vetting process.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) asked Sessions point blank how he feels about being painted as a racist by some prior to the hearings, to which Sessions replied it was "very painful," and that as a Southerner he has witnessed discrimination "in a systematic way" and "we can never go back" to those ways.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) focused on criminal justice reform and mandatory minimum sentencing. Durbin credited Sessions for breaking with members of his party and supporting the reduction in sentencing disparity for crack and cocaine convictions (although Sessions mistakenly asserted that the crack sentencing reforms were made retroactive — they were not).

Durbin then referred to Alton Mills — a low-level drug dealer who spent 22 years in prison because of "three strikes" laws before his sentence was commuted by President Obama in 2015 — who attended the hearing and was asked by Durbin to stand and be noted by the committee. Then the Illinois senator asked Sessions why he still opposes the kind of sentencing reform that would prevent people like Mills from receiving life sentences. Sessions replied that as attorney general, he would follow the laws passed by Congress regarding mandatory minimums, but was deliberately vague about why he opposed reforming those laws as a senator.

The attorney general confirmation hearings will continue through at least Tuesday, when Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) is scheduled to appear in opposition to Sessions' nomination, breaking with a long-standing tradition of senators not testifying against each other in confirmation hearings.

NEXT: Injunction against critical sock puppetry

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. Tut-tut, Sessions and the others will all easily pass. Surely the whiners out there are aware that the so-called “process” is simply a little formality that we know how to get around when we need to ? just like we will know how to get around the “Bill of Rights” in the courts when confronted with the Pussy-Riot recalcitrant subversives who continue to mock our national leader. Who here, for example, would dare to defend the unpresidented “First Amendment dissent” of a single, isolated judge in our nation’s leading criminal “parody” case? See the documentation at:

      http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

      Do the mockers still think the graduates of the “electoral” college will come and rescue them? Do they still think Obama will have the courage to make that little “recess” appointment to the Supreme Court? Stop dreaming, and let’s get back to the business of making America great again.

      1. sooooo what is this crap he keeps spamming around the forums? I recall seeing him posting this 1-2 years ago but always tuned it out because it seemed like spam.

        1. Thank you for joining my anti-Troll campaign. “Spam,” there’s something we should certainly get rid of with the help of our new national leader.

          1. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link,

            go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,, http://www.foxnews20.com

  1. MTV cultural writer tweeted that Sessions should return his Asian granddaughter to the Toys “R” Us he stole her from.

    There goes any discussion about the legitimate criticisms. These people can literally not see anything in the world without focusing on race. They are too stupid to actually think about or consider complex issues, so just yell “RACIST!” and ignore the actual problems with Sessions, which will now get ignored. Yay.

    1. I wonder if that is a deliberate tactic to get him passed, which will indeed be the effect.

      1. I absolutely think that was at least a small part of why she was on his lap, and the predictable reaction from the left shows it was a brilliant move.

      2. There are plenty of good reasons to object to Sessions. I wouldn’t vote to confirm him if I were in the Senate. Those reasons relate to his attitude towards federal power and most of all about the use of forfeiture laws and his general endorsement of the DOJ culture of “everyone is guilty of something and our job is to make sure they pay for it.”

        Sadly, none of the numerous legitimate objections to Sessions will be discussed. I don’t like the guy and wouldn’t vote to confirm him but there is no rational way to say he is racist. Yet, bullshit charges of racism is all we are going to hear about in this hearing.

        1. Exxxxxactly. Just like the valid criticisms of Trump are being ignored because of the hyperbole of his opponents. It’s frustrating beyond belief.

        2. Wait, seriously?

          He was sunk back in the 80s, by his own party for being “too racist”. That he’s still racist isn’t all that hard to believe.

          That said, my question is never “is [X-Person] racist?”, it’s “does [X-Person] manage their racism?”

          ’cause honestly, I don’t care how someone “really” feels. I care what they do, and whether they let their less-noble impulses impact their behavior.

          1. You clearly didn’t research the background of the accusations made in the 80s.

            The big Vote fraud case was this: In a majority black county in an election where all candidates were black, candidate A filed an accusation that Candidate B was engaged in vote fraud. Candidate B, his wife and someone associated with the campaign were caught red-handed delivering several hundred absentee ballots to the post office. Those ballots were all filled in the same handwriting and in the names of people who did not authorize canidate B to file the ballot for them. Included among those were citizens who had voted for their cousin, who was not candidate B but whose ballots read as being for candidate B. The locals wanted a federal prosecutor on the case, Sessions was the US Attorney at the time.

            Canidate B was aquitted via jury nullification because he had previously been a high profile civil rights activist.

            The other accusations have similar details. SoCon, yes, Racist, no.

            1. Again, his own party bucked decades of precedent to block him. That’s a stronger message then anything you can ever write.

              1. If you look at the vote tallies, 8 of 10 Republicans voted in favor of recommending him to the senate. Charles Mathias (Maryland) and Alren Specter (Pennsylvania) did not the whole party make.

                1. Uncivil is racist for explaining something in detail.

        3. This…..everyone is a criminal and these people think everyone is now the states slave…..fuck off slaver

    2. Sessions should return his Asian granddaughter to the Toys “R” Us he stole her from.

      How is that not appallingly racist? That isn’t a shot at Sessions. it is a total dehumanization of his granddaughter. It is saying that Asian kids are not really human beings but toys for rich white people.

      Imagine if Sessions had joked that his Asian granddaughter was so cute that he bought her at Toys are Us. The SJWs would have been on the warpath about that. But this asshole makes an even worse remark and it is okay because racism is great when they do it or something.

      1. She’s not even adopted. His son-in-law is Asian.

          1. Anti-miscegenation is becoming popular on the left again. It’s just racist colonialism.

            1. Genetic appropriation.

      2. The same was done to Romney, if you remember.

        1. Ah yes. Melissa Harris Perry.

          1. Well, it was really Dean Obeidallah, Lispy McGee just hosted the hate-in.

            Have I recently mentioned how much of an insufferable prick Dean Obeidallah is?

          2. Wasn’t she sing-songing “Which one doesn’t belong” over a video of Romney’s family? She seems as complicit as Obedallah (who is truly an insufferable prick indeed).

            1. That was the other chick. MPH was just sharing her fantasies about toddlers marrying each other. Where as MPH and the other chick seemed to go through the motions of a quasi-sincere apology, Obeidallah dug his heels in and and a hissy-fit about ‘humorless’ right-wingers.

              1. Ahh. Gotcha!

          3. Either way, my hate-reservoir is deep enough for both of them.

          4. “One of these is not like the other” -says a tampon earring wearing racist idiot

    3. Yep. Sometimes when I’m feeling particularly masochistic, I’ll flip over to Rush’s silly radio program during lunch.

      Today, this was topic one. It was difficult to understand him with Sessions’ cock in his mouth and all, but I did manage to hear him deflect any legitimate criticism of the man by way of the ‘hypocrisy of the Left’ diatribe he’s so fond of by using this example.

      Right, Left, distract, pivote, and muddy the waters.

      What a shitshow.

      1. I know, right? It’s as if the Republicans are being held to virtually no objective standard at all…

        “What about prosecuting the War on Drugs…”
        “HILLARY WOULD HAVE BEEN WORSE!!!!!”

        “What about wiretapping of citizen’s phones…”
        “HILLARY WOULD HAVE BEEN WORSE!!!!!”

        “What about enforcing immigration law…”
        “HILLARY WOULD HAVE BEEN WORSE!!!!!”

        1. Why I’m old enough to remember when Rush said, after the 2006 midterms, that he was tired of “carrying water” for the GOP. Looks like he’s tanned, rested and ready to carry some more water now.

        2. To be fair, no one said Trump was good. Only that he wasn’t as bad as Hillary.

          So, I think it bears remembering that HILLARY WOULD HAVE BEEN WORSE!

          1. Actually, via the primary process, Republican voters did say that Trump was the best Republican for the job.

            1. Well, Republicans and approximately 10 million people who never voted in a Republican primary before. And Trump won the nomination with the lowest share of the popular vote and delegates since the contested primary of 1968.

            2. Only because the NeverTrumpers couldn’t coalesce behind any other one candidate. There’s a good argument to be made that Kasich (and others) cock blocked Cruz from the nomination. Not to say that Cruz was owed anything, but this is how pluralities work, they can be exceptionally small but relatively more influential in a wide open field of candidates.

            3. I give about as much credence to your whining as I do the whining of “not my president” folks.

              Which is to say, not much. He won the primary fair-and-square. He won the general election fair-and-square. If you don’t like the process by which he won, you are, of course, free to advocate change. But whining about his low vote share does nothing do change the essential fact:

              By the primary process enacted by the Republican National Convention to choose the best Republican nominee, Trump was chosen. Given the option to subvert that choice, the party officials decided to back him (with varying degrees of enthusiasm). Anything else is just trying to squirm out of responsibility.

              1. Which is to say, not much. He won the primary fair-and-square. He won the general election fair-and-square. If you don’t like the process by which he won, you are, of course, free to advocate change. But whining about his low vote share does nothing do change the essential fact:

                I literally said “not to say that Cruz was owed anything” and “that’s just how pluralities work” and yet you claim that I’m whining or claiming that Trump stole something? Get a fucking grip.

              2. You are trying to have it both ways. Yes, he won the primary. Yes, he won the general. If you want to impute deeper meaning to those things then you can’t dismiss facts you don’t like.

    4. you think the “actual problems”? with Sessions weren’t going to be ignored anyway?
      ________
      ?Whatever you consider those to be.

    5. The problem that democrats have with criticizing Sessions over legitimate issues is that they share some of those positions (asset forfeiture comes to mind). Screaming racism at least enables them to virtue signal.

  2. Sessions conceded that the statements he made while serving as a Donald Trump campaign surrogate put “my objectivity in question,” and he promised to recuse himself from any prospective investigation into the Clinton or the Clinton Foundation if confirmed as attorney general.

    With all due respect, what’s magic about the Clintons? Sessions should jolly well recuse himself from *most* AG functions — by taking his name out of consideration.

    1. Pretty much that the Clintons will make sure that whoever takes them down is taken down in turn. To get justice against them you’d need to appoint someone who either doesn’t care about their reputation or has a martyr complex.

      1. Maybe I’m too complacent, but I think that Hillary is a spent ball. Oh, unless the Left pulls it’s collective head out of it’s enormous ass she’s sure to be nominated in 2020. The way the Left is acting,unless Trump gets caught on camera machinegunning nuns, they will make the same mistakes in 2020 that they made in 2016, and she’ll lose by a wider margin. In 2024 she will either be too old to try, or the effort will kill her.

        1. I consider it unlikely that the doddering cunt will make it to 2020, given her terrible health.

  3. I’m sure there are other choices who would be worse than Sessions, but other than Joe Arpaio, I can’t think of any right off the top of my head.

    1. Giuliani probably would’ve been worse. That’s it though.

    2. For once Janet Reno would be a better pick.

      1. Janet “I made my name in a witch-hunt” Reno isn’t a better pick than beelzebub.

        1. I must be off my subtle black humor game today. I’m implying that Reno’s corpse is a better pick. Unless you believe in zombie Reno.

          1. How would you tell the difference. She looked badly embalmed when she was alive.

    3. Bill Bennett?

  4. christ on a cross. is this fucker going to bring a war on pron?

    1. “Senator Sessions, how many times a week do you masturbate?”

      1. “Only once, but, to be fair, that’s only because I never actually stop.”

    2. i can think of only one thing that would lose the GOP’s strangle on the house of reps.. and this dumbass is pining for it.

      1. It’s like the Dems and gun control: dogs returning to their vomit.

    3. That response reads like a non-answer intended to get the Utahn to stop yapping because such an effort wouldn’t survive the lawsuits in this day and age.

      1. His answer and the headline don’t quite jibe do they?

        1. Having just bothered to read the headline subtitle, I do not agree with that interpreation of what was said. “I’ll consiter it” is not “I will prosecute”, it’s in fact closer to a “lol, no.”

          1. I will refer this to a committee.

      2. I don’t see a direct quote so it’s hard to say either way. Given Sessions’ history of introducing legislation on the subject (and his broader authoritarian views on criminal justice issues), I don’t think he should get the benefit of the doubt for saying he’d consider it, even if he left it at that.

        1. Sessions certainly does seem to be a dyed-in-the-wool socon, but his boss isn’t. I can’t imagine Trump signing off on him pursuing crap like indecency laws which will be a small mercy.

          The real damage will be the two tag-teaming to abuse executive power even more than Trump’s two immediate predecessors did.

        2. Sessions is an ass and has plenty of non ambiguous views to be whacked for. Twisting words based on supposition is just counterproductive. Consider and will aren’t the same thing.

          1. I agree they should have added the word consider to the headline. My point is more that I’m not giving him bonus points for his phrasing.

            1. Are we still doing phrasing?

    1. I hate Illinois Nazis

  5. The committee members appear to be virtue signalling, they need to stop wasting public time.

  6. is this fucker going to bring a war on pron?

    ENB hardest hit.

    1. By a vicious case of job security.

      1. That would cut into her free time. And she looks like someone that enjoys her free time.

  7. It looks like Cory Booker is being groomed as the next Obama. Not being from NJ, I haven’t followed his career but I recall there were some scandals, etc. associated with his term as mayor of Newark?

    1. Other than the inherent scandal of being the mayor of Newark?

      1. No New Jerseyan is “Natural” born, it is known.

        Therefore, no one from New Jersey is eligable to be president.

        1. Booker was from his mother’s womb untimely ripp’d?

          1. What womb? He budded from some kind of fungus.

            1. “You demi-puppets that
              By moonshine do the green-sour ringlets make,
              Whereof the ewe not bites, and you whose pastime
              Is to make midnight mushrooms.”

      2. Kind of. I would contend that this scandal falls under the mantle of “that’s just what happen while you’re mayor of Newark.”

        He did once save a lady from a fire though. I don’t think he’s bad guy, just a bad politician.

        1. Also, his admin and the last Devils ownership group had a drawn out war over the arena financing arrangement which made all involved parties look terrible.

    2. “I recall there were some scandals, etc.”

      That’s because you’re a racist.

      /sarc

    3. The book “The Prize”, which is about the Newark schools, touches on Booker’s term as mayor. The short version is that many residents of Newark loved Booker the candidate, but Booker the Mayor was never around. He was always in NYC or on the West Coast hitting up big money donors for the DNC and/or his Senate run. He never seemed to have any interest in actually running Newark, only in using it as a rung to climb higher. So, a typical politician from the standpoint.

      1. Getting elected was the accomplishment?

        1. Let me remind you, the original point of discussing Booker:

          It looks like Cory Booker is being groomed as the next Obama.

          Isn’t that the whole point of ‘The Obama Legacy’?

    4. Like Martin O’Malley he did a shit job and failed upwards, as democrats do. Unlike O’Malley, Booker actually has some charisma, and is made out of the same chocolate that makes Obama so delish to the progtarded.

  8. “Sessions said he would consider reconstituting a special Justice Department unit to prosecute obscenity laws.”

    I wonder who could be the head of such a unit? Maybe someone with experience:

    “”[1988] will be a big year for obscenity prosecutions,” said William F. Weld, the head of the [Justice] department’s criminal division. ”It will involve cases across the country.””

    1. Heh, heh. You said “head”.

      1. I think I get the thrust of your argument.

        1. You definitely seemed to catch on to his point.

    2. He should focus on communist subversives. Basically about 70% of the democrat party.

  9. Instead of being focused on the many and varied good reasons to oppose Sessions, it will be all RACIST!, all the time. And everybody will shrug and say, “Wolf? What wolf?”

    1. There wolf.

  10. Abort Muslim Porn!

    1. An America with Mia Khalifa is not an America at all.

        1. Real football or “fhooot-ball“?

          1. The real one.

            TW: Twitchy, pictures of a pretty lady with large, barely covered breasts.

      1. I don’t think she (or her family) is even Muslim lol

        1. Lebanese-Catholic lacrosse player, but in Jeff Sessions’ world that is pretty damn Muslim.

        2. I don’t think she (or her family) is even Muslim lol

          Would it also shock you to know that many of these actresses aren’t actually hitchhikers willing to enter any white van they see?

          1. What? No way I don’t believe you! You can’t just tell lies on the Internet!

      2. I prefer my porn Hindu, like Priya Rai.

  11. You didn’t really put “porn” and “Hillary Clinton” in the same sentence, did you?

    1. I hope SF didn’t read that…

    2. If that bothers you, here’s a tip – don’t read SugarFree.

      1. Bow-chicka-wow-wow

        1. Eeewww. I guess Rule 34 really is a thing.

            1. PSA: for your own good, don’t click on that link

              1. You’re really naieve about what ends up in these comments, aren’t you?

                1. I guess…

      2. The problem isn’t the reading of SF, it’s when he compulsively has to act it out.

    3. What do you mean, in a sentence? That’s the first thing that comes up in his search engine.

  12. In Sessions’ opening statement he cited recent FBI statistics showing an increase in violent crime from 2015 to 2016, but failed to note that the U.S. murder rate is at about where it was in 2008.

    Shouldn’t we expect the murder rate to be decreasing year after year, due to new life-saving medical efforts and improved forensic and crime-fighting technologies?

    1. “Fun” fact, if you remove Chicago and one or two other deep blue, gun controlled cities, the murder rate is significantly lower. It’s just that the uptick in these areas is so great that it skews the average.

      1. I think the fact that NYC is not in that list suggests there are factors other than being deep blue and gun controlled being more significant. I don’t know what those factors are or why nobody seems interesting in analyzing it but there it is.

        1. I don’t have the time or the data or the first kernel of a hypothesis. I just know that we have bizarrely concentrated murders in a very small number of cities with those two traits (and possibly several other, as yet unrecognized similarities)

          1. Correlation != causation. There are cities in deep red states that are way more dangerous – currently – than NYC.

            I get the sense that most of the murders in high crime cities revolve around rival gangs and the drug trade. One of the things I’ve heard about NYC is that for whatever reason the gang warfare is just not as prevalent as it used to be. And apparently still is in cities like Chicago or Baltimore.

            1. Memphis.

              What about Memphis makes it like the blood soaked streets of Chicago and Detroit…

              1. That hideous Marc Cohn song.

                1. You misspelled ‘Chuck Berry’.

            2. Unlike NYC, Chicago and Baltimore have never had anything like Giuliani. Even a “moderate” like Bloomberg would be hopelessly lost in Chicago or, worse, Baltimore politics. Whatever else might be said about Giuliani and Bloomberg, they were very serious about keeping crime under control.

          2. The root cause for “blue” and “crime” is most likely population density. It’s why even deep red states have deep blue cities, and even conservative countries have liberal cities. Same with crime: get more people in a small space, and crime goes up. Part of it is because of friction (violent crimes of passion), part of it is opportunity (if you’re going to be a mugger, you’ll find many more opportunities in a big city then in a small rural two-horse town), and part is economics (more money in cities).

            Gun-control laws in these places are also largely a reaction to the violence. It’s why most “wild west” towns in the late 1800s/early 1900s had gun control laws, because the laws of a place are largely in response to the problems of the place. So cities that have lots of violence have more laws relating to violence.

            Other factors that correlate strongly with population density: education, economic prosperity, and innovation.

            1. Population density is not the “root cause” because it is just an abstraction. It is however an explanatory factor. Crime rates have been consistently shown to be higher in areas of greater population density, holding (as much as possible) all other factors constant. But that correlation is not very strong; two areas of similar population density can have very different crime rates even though they both have higher crime rates than surrounding areas of lower density. And yes, gun control is (generally) a response to criminal violence, but that’s neither here nor there ultimately because a) it’s not the causal factor either as demonstrated by b) the fact that it generally has little impact on overall levels of violence and crime.

              1. Agree with both of youse’s points.

                I’m more interested in the big differences between otherwise similar cities.

        2. Guiliani. Stop and Frisk. Broken Windows Enforcement

          I think those had a lot to do with it.

          1. Deblasio put a stop to all of that and the crime rate is still going down.

            1. He didn’t put a stop to all of it. After all he hired Giuliani’s point man Bratton as police commissioner. What has accelerated is the use of section 6 voucher to outsource the high crime segments of the population of NYC to surrounding eras.

              1. Bratton is one who largely ended stop & frist.

                As for (I guess you mean) Section 8? Absent proof your theory sounds like tin foil to me.

            2. The crime rate in NYC is rising.

      2. The life saving medicine is a real thing. There were 4368 people shot in Chicago. Of those 3665 survived and 714 died. Can’t imagine what the numbers would look like 20-30 years ago.

        Forensic and crime fighting technologies. Not so much. The clearance rate is about 21%.

        1. Survived to pass on their bullet-attracting genes. Tragic.

  13. Nobody is going to make the obvious Jeff “Struggle” Sessions joke? Fine, I will.

    Spread it far and wide and it might be the next Santorum. You’re welcome.

    1. “Hey, I thought you said we were going to have a *snuggle* session!”

  14. Sessions wants to go after porn? I mean first, hands off my porn stash, which I keep safely stored on the internet on other people’s websites and servers (in case I die suddenly). Secondly, is this really a hill he’s prepared to die on? Even if he is prepared, is this a hill that Trump is prepared to spend his political capital on?

    1. I would hope not, but I also know to never doubt the unnecessary stupidity of the Republican Party.

      1. The issue was raised by the Senator from Utah. Sessions was required to answer it. Given the fact that this is still going to be the Trump administration, I doubt porn will be any sort of priority. Sessions was picked because of his immigration hawk attributes and will likely be tasked with “enforce the immigration laws on the books” by Trump.

        1. Or, some anti-obscenity crackdown bone will be thrown to Orinn Hatch and his SoCon buds in order to get their vote on something Trump wants. Meaning – it will be more of the same business as usual Republican Party malarkey.

          1. I would think that sort of quid pro quo with SoCons would be more costly than it would be profitable. As it often is when trying to throw red meat to the SoCons. It’s true you might get the support of a handful of GOP senators and reps, but their support could be gained in other ways that don’t necessarily alientate every other faction under your tent and across the isle.

            1. I love it when libertarians start talking about how unpopular social conservatism. It’s especially delicious on a day when Reason posts a risibly deluded article about how a libertarian could win Tom Price’s congressional district in GA. There are 100 plus socons in congress and social conservatism is dominant in about 15 states. Libertarianism can’t even elect a single congressperson.

              1. So the SoCons are still the reigning powerhouse of the GOP? Were you in a coma for all of 2016?

                But what do I know, some other political party which has nothing to do with the inner workings of the GOP, didn’t even get any congress critters elected. Makes perfect sense.

                1. So the SoCons are still the reigning powerhouse of the GOP? Were you in a coma for all of 2016?

                  Did I write that?

                  1. You ARE Free Society. Sort of like the hit film Fight Club.

                2. “support of a handful of GOP senators and reps”

        2. Given the fact that this is still going to be the Trump administration, I doubt porn will be any sort of priority.

          But given that this is still going to be the Trump administration, I don’t see Trump running a tight ship. I could totally see his cabinet being able to get away with running around off leash.

          1. Yeah, this. It’s not Trump, it’s Reince or anyone else who has some influence and a bug up their ass from either their own beliefs, or the beliefs of a donor regarding porn, drugs, gambling or whatever else.

            I hope it doesn’t happen, but it very well could.

    2. Trump has political capital? Whatever he’s got, it’s working for him somehow, but it surely isn’t “political capital.”

      Perhaps he’s operating at a deficit via “unfunded liabilities” in political capital? 😀

      1. Yeah he’s got political capital, how wouldn’t he? He just got elected and not everyone is prepared to lay down on the tracks just yet. He may not have as much as Obama in ’08, but he’s got some.

        1. I think you read far too much into my joke.

          1. I got caught unawares that it was a joke. I thought maybe it was just a strained analogy.

    3. The ill look into response is the equivalent of when a girl tells you maybe next and doesn’t give you her number. You are likely familar with the second scenario either way it means nope ain’t gonna happen.

      1. Was there like, a lot of words that randomly got left out of what you were saying?

        Do you smell burning almonds? Is one side of your face drooping?

        Take an aspirin, right now!

  15. I wouldn’t have thought Dick Durbin to be the one adult in that room, but huh.

    1. He is not, nor will he ever be. The pretender is the closest he will come to the title of adult. Adult diaper, which needed to be changed a long time ago.

    2. What? WTF were you watching?

  16. Giuliani probably would’ve been worse. That’s it though.

    Ouch.

    Touche.

  17. If the Dems are thinking big picture they’ll make sure Sessions gets appointed.

  18. The hell with Jeff Sessions. I hope he isn’t confirmed. That said, would it be possible to see him defeated due to very real issues he has with the Constitution rather than bullshit racism accusations? Leftist scum always manages to make me sympathetic towards people I can’t stand.

    1. The people opposing his appointment don’t give a rat’s ass about the constitution and will not argue it. Especially since so many are blatantly ignorant to the point where they’d lose, so they scream “racist!”

      1. I know all that. Just daydreaming.

    2. Well no because your interpretation of the constitution currently has zero followers in the senate. Everything’s not a popularity contest granted but people with 2% suppport rarely get to make the rules.

      1. So what? How does what you said have anything to do with what Chipwooder said?

        Some day soon the Democrats will be in charge again. Am I supposed to be comforted by the fact that they won the popularity contest?

        1. will have won

    3. Not really. Even if every Democrat voted against sessions, it still wouldn’t be enough to stop him. They would have to get at least three Republicans to also refuse to confirm.

      If you think Republicans are going to refuse to confirm a fellow Republican senator? Then you’re off your rocker.

      So no. Barring something truely shocking, he’ll be confirmed. This is all “virtue signaling” on all sides.

      1. Your first point is somewhat contradictory to your last. Sessions will likely be confirmed because his party controls Congress. That’s not virtue-signalling, it’s just politicking.

        1. Not really. People aren’t really asking him questions because they care about his answers. They’re asking him questions because it sends a message to their own constituents.

          Take Utah porn-guy. I sincerely doubt he cares that much about Session’s answer. His question to Sessions about porn was pure virtue-signaling, just like the Utah state legislature was virtue signaling when they declared porn a public health hazard.

          So yeah, whether the questions are coming from Team Red or Team Blue, it’s all about sending the right message to their constituents.

          1. You are conflating two different things. The confirmation hearings are theater. The vote is not.

          2. Never mind my above comment, I think I understand your point now. Because he’s going to be confirmed anyway, the Republicans asking him questions are just virtue-signalling.

            Fair enough.

  19. Face it, people. After Sessions is confirmed you’ll never have fun with your weewees again.

  20. See lots of comments about how sessions shouldn’t be approved but no facts listed for that basis.
    I don’t know him and he may be an ass but just saying some one is does nothing to further discussions or enlighten those of use who don’t know everything

    1. I keep forgetting that Hit & Run can serve educational purposes.

      Here’s a Reason article against Sessions

  21. Nevaeh. I agree that Richard`s storry is shocking… last wednesday I got a great BMW M3 from earning $5318 this-past/4 weeks and just a little over 10/k lass month. without a question it is the most comfortable job Ive ever had. I began this 10-months ago and pretty much straight away got me at least $83, p/h. see here now

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  22. In all of American history, there is probably no Attorney General that contributed more to the modern understanding of that office than Elliot Richardson.

    When Elliot Richardson resigned as Attorney General rather than fire Archibald Cox, the primary responsibilities of the Attorney General changed forever.

    At the time, of course, Archibald Cox was the Special Prosecutor investigating Watergate, and Nixon wanted Cox fired for subpoenaing Nixon’s infamous tapes. That decision to fire Cox and forcing Richardson to resign rather than fire Cox ultimately led to Nixon being forced to resign as President of the United States of America.

    From that moment forward, the primary qualification for Attorney General has always been absolute loyalty to the President. In short, the Attorney General’s primary role is to watch the President’s back on the scandal front. When Attorney General Lynch, for instance, had Comey announce the determination not to prosecute Hillary Clinton, he was acting as a mouthpiece of Lynch. Obama had knowingly sent classified emails to Hillary’s unsecured email server under a pseudonym, which is a crime and an impeachable offense, and, hence, Lynch made certain that no charges would ever be filed against Hillary–because that would implicate the President.

  23. Sessions stood by Trump during his campaign. Trump trusts Sessions to watch his back. Trump had precious few people like that from within the Republican party. Most of the Republicans who supported him were washed up has beens: Giuliani, Gingrich, Palin, Bolton, Christie. Out of that bunch of Republicans Trump could trust to watch his back, Sessions was the most capable. Don’t put too much thought into Sessions’ positions on anything–Donald Trump didn’t. Sessions is there to watch the President’s back and protect him from scandal investigations, which almost certainly arise.

  24. “Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) is scheduled to appear in opposition to Sessions’ nomination, breaking with a long-standing tradition of senators not testifying against each other in confirmation hearings.”

    But it does keep with his long-standing tradition of being an attention whore.

    1. Talk about a puppet.

  25. He is going to put an end to all that pussy grabbing.

  26. Anyone else getting intermittant squelching noise which renders the proceedings inaudible? It seems to happen when something I actually give a shit about is being pursued.

    I wasn’t able to hear his response about 10th amendment as it pertains to state weed laws? Guessing he said something about the importance of state’s rights followed by asserting that he’ll enforce the (federal) law.

  27. Maybe I missed it, but so far I’ve seen no mention of civil asset forfeiture, which apparently Sessions really sucks on.

    Or maybe they haven’t let Rand ask any questions.

    1. Have been listening for most of the day and haven’t heard anything on asset forfeiture. Incidentally the sound has gone to hell again, right when he is being asked some good questions from a republican about maintaining constitutional rights for citizens when overseas.

  28. I wish they could totally legalize obtaining medical marijuana online, I really enjoy smoking it

  29. I can see what your saying… Raymond `s article is surprising, last week I bought a top of the range Acura from making $4608 this-past/month and-a little over, $10,000 this past month . with-out any question its the easiest work I’ve ever had . I began this five months/ago and almost straight away startad bringin in minimum $82 per-hr
    . Read more on this site…..
    ==================
    http://www.homejobs7.com

  30. just before I saw the receipt that said $7527 , I accept that my mom in-law woz like actualey making money in there spare time from there pretty old laptop. . there aunt had bean doing this for less than twentey months and at present cleared the depts on there appartment and bourt a great new Citro?n 2CV . look here…….
    Clik This Link inYour Browser.
    ================> http://www.homejobs7.com

  31. If you feel like a pirate, visit our pirate bay!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.