Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

An example is Cory Booker, who is actually going to testify against Sessions - a total break with tradition because senators don't testify against another senator who has been nominated. Booker is planning on running in 2020 and I think that is behind his decision to testify against him. IMO, it will backfire against Booker.

Poor move on his part. It will backfire on him.

No. It will not. It will unite minorities, most women, and all people who now loathe Trump and the 50,000,000 who will loathe his administration even though Trump will have been impeached, his lapdog Pence will also be loathed.

Booker? He was an anointed not elected. We just saw how well that played on a national stage.

Booker was elected fair and square in a real election. Just because Chris Christie scheduled it on a Wednesday does not make it not a real election.

I hope Booker does this. It will destroy his reputation. He will look like a partisan lefty, which he is.
This will definitely backfire on Booker. Particularly given some of the nice things he has said about Sessions in the past.

It should backfire on him. I'm guessing that is the reason they put this panel last. It was a political stunt. Booker and the chair of the CBC just talked about Sessions' "poor" record on Civil Rights as the reason to deny him the position. Then, one of his AUSA's when he was US ATTY (an African American) gave examples of his record that denied some of their claims--including prosecution of a policeman for excessive force. Another former employee from his time as Attorney General of Alabama talked about other things he had done for Black employees (He was a former investigative officer and held various other law enforcement jobs including US Marshal Service, also an African American). The last speaker was his chief legal counsel for the last twenty years in the Senate--also African American. His "pro' people all cited examples of his behavior and character.

Booker gave no specifics--the main thing they all cited was the Voting Rights case he lost in Perry County prior to being denied the federal judgeship. ACLU guy was skewered by Cruz for leaving out the fact that it was African Americans who brought the case--as they were the victims of the voter fraud. Their case was not successful, but it is ironic that most people assume the case was about helping white voters over black voters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

An example is Cory Booker, who is actually going to testify against Sessions - a total break with tradition because senators don't testify against another senator who has been nominated. Booker is planning on running in 2020 and I think that is behind his decision to testify against him. IMO, it will backfire against Booker.

Poor move on his part. It will backfire on him.

No. It will not. It will unite minorities, most women, and all people who now loathe Trump and the 50,000,000 who will loathe his administration even though Trump will have been impeached, his lapdog Pence will also be loathed.

Booker? He was an anointed not elected. We just saw how well that played on a national stage.

I hope Booker does this. It will destroy his reputation. He will look like a partisan lefty, which he is.
This will definitely backfire on Booker. Particularly given some of the nice things he has said about Sessions in the past.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

An example is Cory Booker, who is actually going to testify against Sessions - a total break with tradition because senators don't testify against another senator who has been nominated. Booker is planning on running in 2020 and I think that is behind his decision to testify against him. IMO, it will backfire against Booker.

Poor move on his part. It will backfire on him.

No. It will not. It will unite minorities, most women, and all people who now loathe Trump and the 50,000,000 who will loathe his administration even though Trump will have been impeached, his lapdog Pence will also be loathed.

Booker? He was an anointed not elected. We just saw how well that played on a national stage.

Anonymous wrote:What I find more interesting is the positioning of some Democratic senators in their questions because I believe they are looking at 2020 when some may choose to run for president.

An example is Cory Booker, who is actually going to testify against Sessions - a total break with tradition because senators don't testify against another senator who has been nominated. Booker is planning on running in 2020 and I think that is behind his decision to testify against him. IMO, it will backfire against Booker.

Booker- ex mayor of Newark. Elected instead of Pallone due to Dem ticket. Phfft to Booker and the Dem machine.

I read and listened to some of it. Relevant part was US citizens that are terrorists or commit terrorist acts go military under TREASON not criminal codes.

No more workplace violence!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else think he's too old to do the job? He's 70, and looks much older.

I have no confidence that he can work long hours. This gig entails far more work and stress than congress.

He may be old, but at least he's not black.

Sorry, just going to a stupid extreme to show how much of a BIGOT you are.

Not a bigot.

Many law firms have mandatory retirement in late 60s or 70. There's a reason for that.

Remind us how old Hillary and Donald are.

Agreed. I posted during the campaign that both were too old for the job.

Do we really want aged dinosaurs running the government and leading federal agencies? If you've ever worked with the Feds, you realize that the job is 24/7.

The Republicans are partying like it's 1959 (apologies to Prince.)

Anonymous wrote:None other than Coretta Scott King wrote a nine-page letter urging that Sessions not be confirmed for the federal judgeship in 1986. Storm Thurmond kept it out of the Congressional record but the Post has found it:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/01/10/read-the-letter-coretta-scott-king-wrote-opposing-sessionss-1986-federal-nomination/?utm_term=.004e62f58088

Nothing will stop his confirmation. We live in a post-truth world.

None other than Coretta Scott King wrote a nine-page letter urging that Sessions not be confirmed for the federal judgeship in 1986. Storm Thurmond kept it out of the Congressional record but the Post has found it:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/01/10/read-the-letter-coretta-scott-king-wrote-opposing-sessionss-1986-federal-nomination/?utm_term=.004e62f58088

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's true, the bosses name is on the filing with the actual working lawyer but s/he's never involved in the case.

That is not true. There is a lot to prosecuting a case--and it involves many steps and many people. After reading Hebert's comment about the "rubber stamp", I asked a close associate who was a longterm AUSA and prosecuted many, many cases. He said he never knew a US Attorney who would "rubber stamp". Personal involvement does not necessarily mean that he personally stood in front of the jury. It is not usual for a US Attorney to personally prosecute the case in front of the jury--but, in high value cases, you can better believe he is paying close attention.

Exactly. If your name is on the complaint, as a lawyer, you are personally responsible for its contents. If anyone is going to get censured, it's you. No lawyer worth his salt would sign a complaint without paying serious attention to its preparation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

An example is Cory Booker, who is actually going to testify against Sessions - a total break with tradition because senators don't testify against another senator who has been nominated. Booker is planning on running in 2020 and I think that is behind his decision to testify against him. IMO, it will backfire against Booker.

Poor move on his part. It will backfire on him.

Liberal here: +2

Booker is such a phony. John Lewis is also testifying against Sessions - he's a much more suitable and authentic voice. Booker needs to shut his dumb trap.

I pray to god the Democrats don't nominate Booker.

In fairness to Booker, his main political method is just following what the Dems have been doing for decades and what has made them drive off a cliff. But given this stunt, I think it obvious he doesn't get the game is up.

Liberal here:
Which is why I'm disappointed with Booker. He's obviously a very smart guy with impeccable credentials. It takes a brilliant person to navigate the human relations to get from Newark to the Ivy League to a Rhodes scholarship and eventually the U.S. Senate. That person needs the uncanny knack of keeping his ear to the prevailing winds and understanding the electorate.

It seems he's lost that ability. If anything, I'm worried that his grandstanding will backfire in a big way. Let John Lewis take his final curtain call....this may be his biggest moment.

According to your definition of brilliance, Trump may well be the most brilliant American in a century.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else think he's too old to do the job? He's 70, and looks much older.

I have no confidence that he can work long hours. This gig entails far more work and stress than congress.

He may be old, but at least he's not black.

Sorry, just going to a stupid extreme to show how much of a BIGOT you are.

Not a bigot.

Many law firms have mandatory retirement in late 60s or 70. There's a reason for that.

Remind us how old Hillary and Donald are.

Agreed. I posted during the campaign that both were too old for the job.

Do we really want aged dinosaurs running the government and leading federal agencies? If you've ever worked with the Feds, you realize that the job is 24/7.

Slightly OT, and somewhat tongue in cheek: a wise friend thought we should have a maximum voting age. Purpose being that only people who were likely to live to experience the decades of results of elections should be deciding said elections.

Or perhaps the opposite: only people with at least a few years of meaningful experience should be able to cast their votes.

I say that we reserve voting for people who...
1) are 30 or older
2) have at least completed undergrad/ professional studies
3) pay federal income tax

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else think he's too old to do the job? He's 70, and looks much older.

I have no confidence that he can work long hours. This gig entails far more work and stress than congress.

He may be old, but at least he's not black.

Sorry, just going to a stupid extreme to show how much of a BIGOT you are.

Not a bigot.

Many law firms have mandatory retirement in late 60s or 70. There's a reason for that.

Remind us how old Hillary and Donald are.

Agreed. I posted during the campaign that both were too old for the job.

Do we really want aged dinosaurs running the government and leading federal agencies? If you've ever worked with the Feds, you realize that the job is 24/7.

Slightly OT, and somewhat tongue in cheek: a wise friend thought we should have a maximum voting age. Purpose being that only people who were likely to live to experience the decades of results of elections should be deciding said elections.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else think he's too old to do the job? He's 70, and looks much older.

I have no confidence that he can work long hours. This gig entails far more work and stress than congress.

He may be old, but at least he's not black.

Sorry, just going to a stupid extreme to show how much of a BIGOT you are.

Not a bigot.

Many law firms have mandatory retirement in late 60s or 70. There's a reason for that.

Remind us how old Hillary and Donald are.

Agreed. I posted during the campaign that both were too old for the job.

Do we really want aged dinosaurs running the government and leading federal agencies? If you've ever worked with the Feds, you realize that the job is 24/7.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else think he's too old to do the job? He's 70, and looks much older.

I have no confidence that he can work long hours. This gig entails far more work and stress than congress.

He may be old, but at least he's not black.

Sorry, just going to a stupid extreme to show how much of a BIGOT you are.

Not a bigot.

Many law firms have mandatory retirement in late 60s or 70. There's a reason for that.

Remind us how old Hillary and Donald are.