Anonymous
Post 01/10/2017 13:12     Subject: Re:Anyone listening to Sessions' confirmation hearing?
Has anyone seen coverage of the protesters removed from the hearings. I've been watching C-Span.
Anonymous
Post 01/10/2017 13:11     Subject: Re:Anyone listening to Sessions' confirmation hearing?
Anonymous wrote:
Sure. But he claimed he was heavily involved. He wasn't.


How do you know that? relative term Hebert said he "rubber stamped" it--that I'mplies no involvement.



Hebert said much more than that. He said without doubt Sessions was NOT involved. The other atty, Rich, said he had never even met Sessions.
Anonymous
Post 01/10/2017 13:10     Subject: Re:Anyone listening to Sessions' confirmation hearing?
Sure. But he claimed he was heavily involved. He wasn't.


How do you know that? relative term Hebert said he "rubber stamped" it--that I'mplies no involvement.

Anonymous
Post 01/10/2017 13:10     Subject: Re:Anyone listening to Sessions' confirmation hearing?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Franken admitted that he was not a lawyer and did not know much. That's pretty clear.


That is not how I took his comments. I took it more as "I'm no lawyer but it seems pretty easy to figure out whether you were involved or not. But I'm no lawyer."


He clearly has talked to people who are, because he's completely right.
Anonymous
Post 01/10/2017 13:10     Subject: Re:Anyone listening to Sessions' confirmation hearing?
Now we are getting to DOJ scrutiny.
Anonymous
Post 01/10/2017 13:09     Subject: Anyone listening to Sessions' confirmation hearing?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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.



Nope. Prosecutor here. Most of the time of their underlings recommend they sign, they just sign. Every once in a while they get involved. In this one, according to the lawyer who actually worked the case, he didn't. That's usually the case.


Yes. Don't they get the credit and the blame? Sessions wrote his name down, so he gets the credit and the blame. He wouldn't get to dodge blame by saying, Oh well I wasn't personally involved in the case, I just signed my name.


Sure. But he claimed he was heavily involved. He wasn't.
Anonymous
Post 01/10/2017 13:09     Subject: Re:Anyone listening to Sessions' confirmation hearing?
Anonymous wrote:Franken admitted that he was not a lawyer and did not know much. That's pretty clear.


That is not how I took his comments. I took it more as "I'm no lawyer but it seems pretty easy to figure out whether you were involved or not. But I'm no lawyer."
Anonymous
Post 01/10/2017 13:08     Subject: Anyone listening to Sessions' confirmation hearing?
Anonymous wrote:
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.



Nope. Prosecutor here. Most of the time of their underlings recommend they sign, they just sign. Every once in a while they get involved. In this one, according to the lawyer who actually worked the case, he didn't. That's usually the case.


Yes. Don't they get the credit and the blame? Sessions wrote his name down, so he gets the credit and the blame. He wouldn't get to dodge blame by saying, Oh well I wasn't personally involved in the case, I just signed my name.
Anonymous
Post 01/10/2017 13:08     Subject: Anyone listening to Sessions' confirmation hearing?
Sessions just awkwardly described the period of working on the Prison Rape Elimination Act as a "special time in my life."
Anonymous
Post 01/10/2017 13:07     Subject: Re:Anyone listening to Sessions' confirmation hearing?
Franken admitted that he was not a lawyer and did not know much. That's pretty clear.
Anonymous
Post 01/10/2017 13:06     Subject: Anyone listening to Sessions' confirmation hearing?
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.



Nope. Prosecutor here. Most of the time of their underlings recommend they sign, they just sign. Every once in a while they get involved. In this one, according to the lawyer who actually worked the case, he didn't. That's usually the case.
Anonymous
Post 01/10/2017 13:05     Subject: Anyone listening to Sessions' confirmation hearing?
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.



Sessions clarified that he maintained open door policies and never impeded their ability to do their jobs. AKA, personal involvement.
Anonymous
Post 01/10/2017 13:04     Subject: Anyone listening to Sessions' confirmation hearing?
Victims' rights!

Supposedly victims groups support Sessions? According to Flake
Anonymous
Post 01/10/2017 13:04     Subject: Anyone listening to Sessions' confirmation hearing?
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.

Anonymous
Post 01/10/2017 13:03     Subject: Re:Anyone listening to Sessions' confirmation hearing?
Now going on about using AZ's "streamlining" process. Zero tolerance for illegal border crossings.