Jump to content

Jeff Sessions forced to resign


Zonahorn

Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

 

 

18 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Marbury V Madison pretty much validate the existence of SCOTUS?

It certainly is the only reason we have judicial review of congressional action. 

And I feel like this is my fault. Judicial review wasn't even actually in that much danger until I opened my big mouth here:
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Satchel said:

This won't end well for Trump or Whitaker when the House Judiciary Committee hauls the new deputy AG before them and asks what Trump said to him when giving him the job.

He would refuse to answer any questions or just ignore the subpoena and whip out a get out of jail free card that Trump had signed dated November 7.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, yoladu said:

yeah, but why not a week ago? 2 weeks ago? a month ago?

Because the fake news media has convinced the american people that its a righteous investigation. Had he done it before the election, the fake news enemy of the people would've whipped voters into a frenzy and perhaps cost the GOP Senate seats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sessions has to feel like the biggest fool in the country. He was the first Republican politician of any stature to give his support to Fat Nixon. All he got in return was two years of insults, belittlement, constant scorn and ridicule, all because he did what the law required and recused himself. 
If you ever needed any proof that Fat Nixon puts in personal interests above those of the anybody else you need only to look at Sessions' record as AG He was aggressive in rolling back civil rights protections and doing the bidding of the racists in Fat Nixon's administration. Trump's response was to call him a dumb f'ing Southerner and fire him.

Good for both of them. They deserve each other.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Satchel said:

This won't end well for Trump or Whitaker when the House Judiciary Committee hauls the new deputy AG before them and asks what Trump said to him when giving him the job.

Didn't AG Eric Holder ignore a supoena from a House Commitee ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Whitman said:

Didn't AG Eric Holder ignore a supoena from a House Commitee ?

Judge declines to hold Holder in contempt

 

By JOSH GERSTEIN

 

10/06/2014 03:04 PM EDT

A federal judge has declined a House committee's bid to have Attorney General Eric Holder held in contempt of court — and perhaps even jailed — for failing to turn over documents related to the Justice Department' s response to Operation Fast and Furious.

However, in a ruling Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson also denied Holder's request for an indefinite stay of her prior order that the attorney general must turn over any "non-privileged" documents the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee subpoenaed as part of an investigation into the botched gunrunning investigation. The judge previously ruled that Holder must give the panel any documents that are not both predecisional and deliberative in nature.

Jackson called the House contempt motion "entirely unnecessary" and said it was evident that she was considering the government's motion to lift her prior order. "Under those circumstances, the Court finds no basis to hold defendant in contempt," she wrote.

But the judge also said she saw no reason to allow the Justice Department to withhold unprivileged documents until the case was complete. She ordered those records turned over to the committee by Nov. 3, along with a log of the records claimed to be privileged.

"Though the Court has the discretion to grant a stay in the interests of judicial economy and efficiency, pending appeal or otherwise, there is no pending appeal here and the Court has already ruled that defendant has no legal basis to withhold non-deliberative documents. The 'possibility' of an appeal and piecemeal litigation does not satisfy defendant’s burden to demonstrative a 'clear case of hardship or inequity' without a stay," she wrote in her decision (posted here).

A Justice Department spokesman welcomed the decision, at least the part rebuffing the motion to hold Holder in contempt. "We are pleased that the court rejected the committee's latest stunt," spokesman Brian Fallon said.

A spokesperson for the House committee said the judge's ruling is a step towards the panel receiving documents it should have been given years ago. "The Oversight Committee is pleased that the Judge in the case has rejected the Department's request to continue illegally withholding documents and its attempt to unnecessarily prolong the proceeding.  This court ruling affirms that Attorney General Holder broke the law in withholding subpoenaed documents, which led the House of Representatives to vote him in criminal contempt," said the spokesperson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

Check your meter pal.

Check his record, brother. We're talking about a guy who said he didn't really have a problem with the KKK except for their marijuana use. He's been consistently against civil rights and pro-LGBT rights, not to mention voting rights. He's the architect of much of Trump's draconian immigration policy. He's all in on family separations and caging children as a deterrent. He's in favor of removing domestic and gang violence as reasons for granting asylum. He doesn't know the difference between cannabis and heroin, is a hardcore advocate of the failed War on Drugs, suggested the death penalty for drug dealers, wanted to roll back Obama era reforms on civil asset forfeiture. The list goes on. That he's a racist piece of shit isn't a matter for debate. That record goes back decades. 

He was never fit for that office. Just because he was one of the many members of Trump's campaign who had contact with the Russians and lied about it to congress, requiring him to correctly recuse himself from the Russia investigation, don't let that confuse you into thinking he's a man worthy of our respect. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Check his record, brother. We're talking about a guy who said he didn't really have a problem with the KKK except for their marijuana use. He's been consistently against civil rights and pro-LGBT rights, not to mention voting rights. He's the architect of much of Trump's draconian immigration policy. He's all in on family separations and caging children as a deterrent. He's in favor of removing domestic and gang violence as reasons for granting asylum. He doesn't know the difference between cannabis and heroin, is a hardcore advocate of the failed War on Drugs, suggested the death penalty for drug dealers, wanted to roll back Obama era reforms on civil asset forfeiture. The list goes on. That he's a racist piece of shit isn't a matter for debate. That record goes back decades. 

He was never fit for that office. Just because he was one of the many members of Trump's campaign who had contact with the Russians and lied about it to congress, requiring him to correctly recuse himself from the Russia investigation, don't let that confuse you into thinking he's a man worthy of our respect. 

Dude. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Check his record, brother. We're talking about a guy who said he didn't really have a problem with the KKK except for their marijuana use. He's been consistently against civil rights and pro-LGBT rights, not to mention voting rights. He's the architect of much of Trump's draconian immigration policy. He's all in on family separations and caging children as a deterrent. He's in favor of removing domestic and gang violence as reasons for granting asylum. He doesn't know the difference between cannabis and heroin, is a hardcore advocate of the failed War on Drugs, suggested the death penalty for drug dealers, wanted to roll back Obama era reforms on civil asset forfeiture. The list goes on. That he's a racist piece of shit isn't a matter for debate. That record goes back decades. 

He was never fit for that office. Just because he was one of the many members of Trump's campaign who had contact with the Russians and lied about it to congress, requiring him to correctly recuse himself from the Russia investigation, don't let that confuse you into thinking he's a man worthy of our respect. 

You’re checking the wrong meter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark Whitaker is temporary.  A permanent AG will be named later.  That much was stated.

Is it outrageous to think that John Cornyn's name will be in the hat?  As a former Texas AG, he might want that job.  That could get interesting when it comes to filling his Senate seat.  Wonder who might want that seat?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

At some point Mueller is going to be called to testify before Congress and brief the American people.  Good luck obstructing that without going full Putin.  

And, like everything for the last two two years, it won’t fucking matter. Trump isn’t losing a single nut left in the basket of deplorables. 51-54 senators need those nuts, and a vote/comment against Trump and those nuts flock to a primary challenger.

The house can investigate, but that’s it. Their findings will be interesting to historians debating how we let Emperor Toaddick consolidate power so easily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...