1,100 Law Profs Write Letter Opposing Jeff Sessions for AG

1,100 law professors have signed a letter to Congress urging that Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) not be confirmed as Attorney General. The letter is here.

In my view, Jeff Sessions has always been a disaster for criminal justice. (The NY Times declared him an "insult to justice" after Trump picked him.)

On a related note, UnPresident-Elect Donald Trump, who has no say in the matter yet, yesterday opposed the release of more detainees from Guantanamo. President Obama, meanwhile, is pressing ahead with plans to release another 19 detainees.

“There is one commander in chief at a time, and the secretary of defense will continue to carry out his responsibilities as he sees appropriate,” said Pentagon press secretary Peter Cook.


According to the Washington Post article, there are 59 detainees remaining at Gitmo, only 10 of whom have been charged with crimes to be decided by military tribunals. 5 of those are charged with offenses pertaining to 9/11. An additional 4 have been cleared by agency review (not Obama) for release and the remaining 26 are considered "forever prisoners", subject to indefinite detention, because the Obama Administration agrees they are too dangerous for release.

Trumps' choice for Homeland Security Chief, Retired Marine Gen. John F. Kelly, has long opposed closing Gitmo. Obama could care less about Trump or Kelly's view. WAPO continues:

Obama administration officials have noted that recidivism among those once held at Guantanamo is lower than among federal offenders in the United States and the prison is used as a recruitment tool by Islamic militant groups, including al-Qaeda and the Islamic State.

Most of those suspected of returning to the battlefield are from Afghanistan, reflecting the large number of people from there who were detained after the 9/11 attacks.

...The Obama administration has repatriated or resettled 179 prisoners, cutting the population from 242 when Bush left office. At its peak, the detention center housed more than 700 prisoners.

I hope the 19 cleared by Obama make it out in time.

As for Sessions, the NAACP held a protest sit-in today at his office in Mobile. It ended with arrests, including that of the NAACP President.

The most revolting sight at the federal detention facility and the U.S. Marshals' Service office at the federal courthouse beginning Jan. 21 will be the photos of Trump and Sessions on display in the reception room where we sign in to see our clients. The photos of Bush and Ashcroft made me gag, but the Vulgarian and the Munchkin may be worse.

< China Gets a New Media Network | Friday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Being a rather forgiving and second-chance (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Peter G on Wed Jan 04, 2017 at 04:55:13 PM EST
    sort of guy, I'd be inclined to ask what Sessions has done in the last 25 years that disqualifies him, rather than focus on what he did and said 30 years ago. But the fact that he is not denouncing or apologizing for his past actions, but rather trying to whitewash them (pun intended), is very telling.

    I'm a forgiving sort, too, Peter. (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jan 05, 2017 at 03:02:07 PM EST
    But it doesn't necessarily follow that I'd then be willing to trust the U.S. Dept. of Justice to the tender mercies of Jefferson Beauregard "Jeff" Sessions III as our nation's Attorney General. Blunt truth be told, this goober literally personifies everything that's forever been so wrong about good ol' boy southern politics.

    And I really don't appreciate the fact that even today, GOP flacks are attempting to misstate and rewrite recent history by falsely crediting Sessions as then-U.S. Attorney for Alabama during the Reagan administration with the prosecution of a number of civil rights cases, including that of KKK members and leaders in the notorious 1981 random lynching of 19-year-old Michael Donald. And Sessions himself has rather brazenly done the same on the questionnaire he recently submitted to the U.S. Senate regarding his nomination for Attorney General.

    The hard fact of the matter is that rather than press a prosecution in the Michael Donald case, Sessions was perfectly willing to let it die despite the vociferous objections of the boy's mother. It reached a point where Tom Figures, a Deputy U.S. Attorney in Mobile -- and a black man whom Sessions had once allegedly disparaged to colleagues as "boy" -- felt compelled to bypass this latter-day Boss Hogg and appeal directly to DOJ superiors in Washington to let him continue the investigation. That the Klan was finally held legally responsible and accountable for young Michael's tragic killing was due entirely to the relentless efforts of his mother Beulah Donald and Mr. Figures, rather than Sessions himself.

    Jeff Sessions has no business even being in Congress, never mind ever being nominated in the first place for either U.S. Attorney, a federal judgeship or U.S. Attorney General. And if ever a line in the sand needed to be sharply drawn in the sand right in front of President-elect Trump, it's with his appallingly ignorant and dumb-assed nomination of this bigoted yahoo as our nation's chief law enforcement officer.



    Powerful endorsement (none / 0) (#41)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Jan 05, 2017 at 07:33:56 PM EST
    Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) received a surprise endorsement Wednesday of his selection as the next attorney general -- from the son of civil rights advocates prosecuted by Sessions three decades ago on voter fraud charges.

    "I am not saying I am agreeing with all the positions Jeff Sessions has taken," Albert Turner Jr. said in an interview. "But I think he is qualified to be attorney general. Based on his record there is some things we should look at, but I don't think they are disqualifying."

    Sooooo "powerful" (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 05, 2017 at 08:01:42 PM EST
    Because .... reasons.

    Evelyn Turner, Albert Turner Sr.'s widow, has spoken out against Sessions and she dismissed her son's view of him. She said that her son did not understand what she and her husband had gone through. "He was in college, at Birmingham," she said. "He was not in the house."

    Evelyn Turner's son has ­advised her to forgive Sessions, but she told him, "you weren't indicted."

    The problem is folks on the left (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by itscookin on Thu Jan 05, 2017 at 12:27:36 PM EST
    object to pretty much any right-leaning choice Trump could make for any position in his cabinet. It's unrealistic to expect him to choose someone Democrats would be happy over. If they could agree on which nominee they're going to block or at least stall and push the others through w/o incident, they might be able to get enough Republicans to block that one choice, too. As it is, the Democrats just look like sore losers.

    Nope, my Dems look like winners (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Towanda on Thu Jan 05, 2017 at 07:00:55 PM EST
    when they oppose outrageous nominations.

    You are not seeing similar outcry about some other nominees.


    Woolsey has had enough... (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by desertswine on Thu Jan 05, 2017 at 11:20:14 PM EST
    Former CIA chief James Woolsey quits Trump transition team.

    Woolsey said on CNN that he did not want to “fly under false colors” any longer.


    Sounds like he was angered (none / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 09:28:16 AM EST
    for being ignored.

    People close to Woolsey said that he had been excluded in recent weeks from discussions on intelligence matters with Trump and retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, the incoming White House national security adviser. They said that Woolsey had grown increasingly uncomfortable lending his name and credibility to the transition team without being consulted......When I'm on the [television] screen, everybody announces that I'm a former CIA director and that I'm a Trump adviser and I'm really not anymore."

    Understandable. I've been through enough mergers/transitions to understand that..both ways.

    You are not invited to the meetings on staff levels...

    Woolsey suggested in a pair of cable television interviews Thursday evening that he was only an informal adviser to Trump, with duties that included speaking to the journalists about Trump and his national security policies.

    So when you get something lined up....

    He wishes the President-Elect and his Administration great success in their time in office," Jonathan Franks, a spokesman for Woolsey, said in a statement.

    Heh, of course (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 04:11:25 PM EST
    A past CIA director and someone capable of serving any qualified sound minded President would say nothing less in the face of emergency. Perception is reality on the world stage. He's competent, not stupid.

    Is he all that qualified?? (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 05:09:28 PM EST
    I'd say that, based on their record, all the agencies need a thorough review.

    What record? (none / 0) (#58)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 05:19:31 PM EST
    For starters (none / 0) (#106)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 07:24:04 AM EST
    They missed on 9/11 then on the WMD's......

    WMDs? (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 07:21:07 AM EST
    Was Bush Administration cherry picking. Hans Blix told them straight up there weren't any, he told them straight up he had supervised the destruction of WMD in Iraq, he told them straight up that Saddam had to publicly bluff because Iran could not know he had nothing to stand against them with.

    Cherry picking, like how you cherry pick history.


    Don't think Han Blix said said those things (none / 0) (#124)
    by Green26 on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 10:40:07 AM EST
    prior to the US invasion of Iraq. In fact, I thought he specifically said that he couldn't say for sure that there weren't any WMD.

    "There were about 700 inspections, and in no case did we find weapons of mass destruction," said Hans Blix, the Swedish diplomat called out of retirement to serve as the United Nations' chief weapons inspector from 2000 to 2003; from 1981 to 1997 he headed the International Atomic Energy Agency. "We went to sites [in Iraq] given to us by intelligence, and only in three cases did we find something" - a stash of nuclear documents, some Vulcan boosters, and several empty warheads for chemical weapons. More inspections were required to determine whether these findings were the "tip of the iceberg" or simply fragments remaining from that deadly iceberg's past destruction, Blix said he told the United Nations Security Council."

    Note the last sentence above. This was a speech/forum in 2004. Article.

    "In his report to the UN Security Council on 14 February 2003, Blix claimed that "so far, UNMOVIC has not found any such weapons [of mass destruction], only a small number of empty chemical munitions."


    He most certainly did Green (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 06:48:48 PM EST
    And his team practically ran for their lives out of Iraq because the Bush Administration was invading and Hans could just go to hell!

    For Starters (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 07:35:16 AM EST
    The absolutely did not miss 9/11, they warned the Bush administration in no uncertain terms, they chose to ignore it.

    What was the warning to Bush prior to 9/11? (none / 0) (#125)
    by Green26 on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 10:41:36 AM EST
    And where did the warning come from? Or who are the "they" you refer to?

    Google impaired ? (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 11:19:31 AM EST
    On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning's "presidential daily brief" -- the top-secret document prepared by America's intelligence agencies -- featured the now-infamous heading: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal.
    Link my bold.

    Or if you don't want to believe Eichenwald how about straight from the Bush Admin.

    ''It is widely known that we had information that bin Laden wanted to attack the United States or United States interests abroad,'' Ari Fleischer, the president's press secretary, said this evening. ''The president was also provided information about bin Laden wanting to engage in hijacking in the traditional pre-9/11 sense, not for the use of suicide bombing, not for the use of an airplane as a missile.''........The warning of the hijacking was given to the president at his ranch in Crawford, Tex., where he was on vacation.
    Link (again my bold)

     None are so blind as those who will not see.

    Yes, the US gets information like that (none / 0) (#127)
    by Green26 on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 11:47:01 AM EST
    frequently. Occasionally, it is credible and correct. Usually, it isn't. I see no information that indicated that Bin Laden would strike the WTC and Pentagon with 4 planes. Just general stuff. Not saying the appropriate agencies couldn't or shouldn't have done a better job.

    You know that personally? (none / 0) (#128)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 11:51:40 AM EST
    You know personally that they don't? (none / 0) (#130)
    by Green26 on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 12:03:47 PM EST
    I am not the one (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 02:58:05 PM EST
    proffering the statement.

    Interesting burden of proof you use:  

       (1) You reject the unanimous consensus of the Intelligence Community that the Russians were behind the cyber attack in order to influence the election because the report does not reveal the classified sources and methods supporting their conclusion; while those GOPers who have seen the classified back-up for the report accept the conclusions.  Thus, you are really thorough and skeptical on that score.

        (2)   You throw out rank unsourced speculation then demand that I disprove it.  Wow, not so thorough or skeptical, are you?

    Your arbitrary use of a changing burden of proof renders your arguments null and void (since you like legal type stuff.)


    Actually, I said that I believe most of what the (none / 0) (#136)
    by Green26 on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 03:15:19 PM EST
    intelligence report said, including that Russia was behind the hacking. Want to bet me on this? How about the loser quits posting on TL for a month?

    All I have done is ask for the specifics and evidence that Russia/Putin did this to get Trump elected. So far, zero specifics or proof has been offered.


    You are vaguely aware (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 03:44:29 PM EST
    that the Russians knew at the time that the person they were trying to hurt, Clinton, was running against someone in a presidential election?

    But you need more proof they were trying to help Trump..

    At this point, one is forced to conclude either that the predominant part of your thinking apparatus rejects elementary logic, or that you're blog-clogging.


    I know the football deflaters (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 04:07:22 PM EST
    were trying to hurt the Colts, but I need more proof they were trying to help the Patriots.

    Actually, the football deflators were not (none / 0) (#164)
    by Green26 on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 07:32:31 PM EST
    trying to hurt the Colts. They were trying to help the Patriots. Only the Patriots were using the deflated balls. Nice try on an incorrect analogy.

    So cheating and cutthroat tactics (none / 0) (#165)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 08:58:10 PM EST
    and helps one side or hurts one side but never both at the same time.

    That way of interpreting things helps explain a lot of your posts.


    First, it has been pretty much shown (none / 0) (#166)
    by Green26 on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 10:20:01 PM EST
    that it wasn't cheating, and the balls deflated for natural temperature reasons. NFL screwed up.

    Second, balls would have either deflated due to the weather or by deflators no matter who the other team was. Wasn't directed at the Colts.

    Score was 45-7, Patriots.

    Let me know if you want to debate sports, including football. I played 2 sports in college, including football. Would be happy to run circles around you. Ha.


    wow (none / 0) (#168)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 10, 2017 at 05:31:53 PM EST
    2 sports in college?!?

    Heh. heh, heh ...


    Yes, the Russians were trying to hurt Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Green26 on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 07:29:49 PM EST
    and disrupt the election. Putin and Russia don't like Clinton. Russians started their program long before Clinton or Trump were the nominees. My view is that the Russians would have done most of what they did whether Trump had been the nominee or not.

    I'm not looking for more proof in order to believe anything. Don't think I've said I didn't believe things in the report. I would just like to see what the proof is. Nothing so far. What's wrong with that?

    Do you believe everything that US intelligence or any US official or agency says? Do you believe Iraq had WMD?


    You want it both ways, as usual (none / 0) (#142)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 04:11:01 PM EST
    You do not want (now) to be labeled a denier like a climate denier, and look foolish; so you stick to your just-asking-questions shtick.

    Gee, too bad the Intelligence Community did not accede to your request to reveal classified information.


    Don't (none / 0) (#129)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 11:54:36 AM EST
    be rude to the mentally challenged, don't be rude to the mentally challenged, don't be rude to the mentally challenged........it's so hard to follow J's rules.

    This is the (none / 0) (#131)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 01:05:44 PM EST
    constant apologia conservatives love to give. Since Bin Laden didn't say exactly what time and where he was going to attack there was nothing that could be done. Bush wouldn't even put the high alert on Clinton used and he disbanded the terrorism team The guy was a stupid putz and I'll never understand why conservatives will apologize for him over and over.

    Clinton? (none / 0) (#132)
    by BTAL on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 01:33:19 PM EST
    He received a very similar 1998 PDB warning regarding hijackings by OBL.


    Bush's PDB referenced that 3 year old PDB item.  There was nothing new or specific indicating the 9/11 timing or type of attack.


    Sure (5.00 / 3) (#138)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 03:53:21 PM EST
    dismiss it as "old news" and wash your hands of it, how did that work out? I guess just swell for the apologists with their alternate history.

    BTW: It wasn't just the PDB:
    Two Months Before 9/11, an Urgent Warning to Rice

    Black laid out the case, consisting of communications intercepts and other top-secret intelligence showing the increasing likelihood that al-Qaeda would soon attack the United States. It was a mass of fragments and dots that nonetheless made a compelling case, so compelling to Tenet that he decided he and Black should go to the White House immediately........For months, Tenet had been pressing Rice to set a clear counterterrorism policy.......But Tenet had been having difficulty getting traction on an immediate bin Laden action plan, in part because Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had questioned all the National Security Agency intercepts and other intelligence........Afterward, Tenet looked back on the meeting with Rice as a tremendous lost opportunity to prevent or disrupt the Sept. 11 attacks. Rice could have gotten through to Bush on the threat, but she just didn't get it in time, Tenet thought. He felt that he had done his job and had been very direct about the threat, but that Rice had not moved quickly. He felt she was not organized and did not push people, as he tried to do at the CIA.
    while I am not discounting a large hunk of CYA in this account, it is corroborated by others. Richard Clark for one:   
    Former antiterror adviser says Bush ignored 9/11 warnings
    Clarke said he asked for a Cabinet-level meeting in January 2001, shortly after the president took office, to discuss the threat al Qaeda posed to the United States. "That urgent memo wasn't acted on," Clarke told CBS. Instead, he said, administration officials were focused on issues such as missile defense and Iraq....."He[Bush] never thought it was important enough for him to hold a meeting on the subject, or for him to order his national security adviser to hold a Cabinet-level meeting on the subject," ....Clarke said he eventually got to address a Cabinet meeting on terrorism months after his request, and only a week before the attacks.

    Pro tip: If you want to try and revise history, you better come loaded for bear.


    You have heard (none / 0) (#133)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 02:51:49 PM EST
    of Tom Clancy, no?

    The plot of one his novels published before 9/11 was a pilot flying a jetliner into the Capitol.

    And, whither Bush and Condi?  Condi was scheduled to give a speech on 9/11 about missile defense against the Russians; and she later said that no one could have imagined flying planes into buildings.

    Amazing how you guys give Bush a pass.


    The pilot episode (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 04:00:44 PM EST
    of the X-Files spinoff show Lone Gunman, featured the bad guys specifically planning to crash planes into the World Trade Center.

    But, according to Condi, it never occurred to anyone for one moment to do anything like that before the 9/11 attack.

    These folks would provide cover for Charlie Manson if he stood for overturning Roe v Wade, privatization and deregulation, and publicly validating their belief that "this is a Christian nation."


    A Clancy novel (none / 0) (#135)
    by BTAL on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 03:05:47 PM EST
    is your rebuttal?  Wow.

    Correct, no one considered that anyone would devise such an attack.  Just like with Clinton, there was not sufficient actionable intelligence to clearly identify such a threat/attack.

    Ga6th's point was that Clinton had his act together regarding OBL and placed the country on some sort of alert/warning status.   Completely false.


    How (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 04:25:58 PM EST
    about sworn testimony
    Testimony of Dan Marcus - 9/11 Commission staff member, general counsel:

    In December 2000, the CIA developed initiatives -- moving off the Cole now -- based on the assumption that policy and money were no longer constraints. The result was the so-called Blue Sky memo, which we discussed earlier today. This was forwarded to the NSC staff.

    As the Clinton administration drew to a close, the NSC counterterrorism staff developed another strategy paper; the first such comprehensive effort since the Delenda plan of 1998. The resulting paper, titled "A Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of Al Qaida; Status and Prospects," reviewed the threat, the records to date, incorporated the CIA's new ideas from the Blue Sky memo, and posed several near-term policy choices. The goal was to roll back Al Qaida over a period of three to five years, reducing it eventually to a rump group like others formerly feared but now largely defunct terrorist organizations in the 1980s. Quote, "Continued anti-Al Qaida operations at the current level will prevent some attacks, but will not seriously attrite their ability to plan and conduct attacks," Clarke and his staff wrote.


    Asked by Hadley to offer major initiatives, on January 25, 2001 Clarke forwarded his December 2000 strategy paper and a copy of his 1998 Delenda plan to the new national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice. Clarke laid out a proposed agenda for urgent action by the new Administration: Approval of covert assistance to the Northern Alliance; significantly increase funding; choosing a standard of evidence for attributing responsibility for the Cole and deciding on a response; going forward with new Predator missions in the spring and preparation of an armed version; and more work on terrorist fundraising.


    Clarke asked on several occasions for early principals meetings on these issues, and was frustrated that no early meeting was scheduled. No principals committee meetings on Al Qaida were held until September 4th, 2001. Rice and Hadley said this was because the deputies committee needed to work through many issues relating to the new policy on Al Qaida. The principals committee did meet frequently before September 11th on other subjects, Rice told us, including Russia, the Persian Gulf and the Middle East peace process. Rice and Hadley told us that, although the Clinton administration had worked very hard on the Al Qaida program, its policies on Al Qaida, quote, "had run out of gas," and they therefore set about developing a new presidential directive and a new, comprehensive policy on terrorism.

    Testimony of Richard Clarke, former White House counterterrorism coordinator:

    TIMOTHY ROEMER, Commission Member: OK. With my 15 minutes, let's move into the Bush administration.

    On January 25th, we've seen a memo that you've written to Dr. Rice urgently asking for a principals' review of Al Qaida. You include helping the Northern Alliance, covert aid, significant new '02 budget authority to help fight Al Qaida and a response to the USS Cole. You attach to this document both the Delenda Plan of 1998 and a strategy paper from December 2000.

    Do you get a response to this urgent request for a principals meeting on these? And how does this affect your time frame for dealing with these important issues?

    CLARKE: I did get a response, and the response was that in the Bush administration I should, and my committee, counterterrorism security group, should report to the deputies committee, which is a sub-Cabinet level committee, and not to the principals and that, therefore, it was inappropriate for me to be asking for a principals' meeting. Instead, there would be a deputies meeting.

    ROEMER: So does this slow the process down to go to the deputies rather than to the principals or a small group as you had previously done?

    CLARKE: It slowed it down enormously, by months. First of all, the deputies committee didn't meet urgently in January or February. Then when the deputies committee did meet, it took the issue of Al Qaida as part of a cluster of policy issues, including nuclear proliferation in South Asia, democratization in Pakistan, how to treat the various problems, including narcotics and other problems in Afghanistan, and launched on a series of deputies meetings extending over several months to address Al Qaida in the context of all of those inter-related issues. That process probably ended, I think in July of 2001. So we were ready for a principals meeting in July. But the principals calendar was full and then they went on vacation, many of them in August, so we couldn't meet in August, and therefore the principals met in September.

    [my bold}

    The historical record clearly shows that the Bush administration put the threat of terrorism on the back burner. Your argument that there was nothing to be done because there was no clear plan or actionable intelligence or that the Clinton administration did not develop plans and raise the warning  is completely stupid and completely false.

    But thanks for playing, we will forward your participation trophy to Breitbart, or whatever swamp you call your home.



    Monday morning QB (none / 0) (#146)
    by BTAL on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 04:36:08 PM EST
    all you like.  The fact of the matter is that an attack like that was not readily apparent.  If it made it into the PDB in 1998 and still had not been qualified enough to make the major intelligence agencies start ringing the fire bells - it was still non-actionable intel.   Tragic to the utmost but the IC and Nat.Sec. apparatus doesn't knee jerk, sometimes to a fault.

    Again, the point I was addressing was Ga6th's statement that Clinton raised alert/warning levels to protect the country but Bush didn't.  False.


    Sure (none / 0) (#152)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 05:02:28 PM EST
    just ignore the actual historical record for your unfounded revisionist swill.

    Sure (none / 0) (#154)
    by BTAL on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 05:10:03 PM EST
    and continue deluding yourself of the omnipotent power of the IC capabilities swill.

    Yep, even a novelist could (none / 0) (#140)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 04:06:24 PM EST
    imagine it, but poor Condi could not.

    Yes and there but the grace (none / 0) (#144)
    by BTAL on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 04:29:17 PM EST
    could have walked Clinton.  Guess he was just as willfully inept regarding the 1st WTC bombings and the USS Cole?  

    Also to use your logic, all our intelligence and national security teams should be glued to drama fiction novels and television shows to ensure they don't miss any possibility.

    Ya'll are gonna pull a mental muscle if not careful.


    Clancy was well read (none / 0) (#145)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 04:33:13 PM EST
    and famous.  If you can't envision what he wrote about, then you were in a serious black hole.  

     I assume our intelligence agencies would be on the look out for terrorists adopting the plot of an internationally famous novelist.

    But, pass given to poor Condi.  She blew it, but she can't be blamed.  How charitable of you.  You apply that standard to Dems too?


    I am one of Clancy's biggest fans (none / 0) (#147)
    by BTAL on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 04:37:56 PM EST
    and have read every one of his books to include is spin-off series.

    You're attempt to use him & his writings as a rationale for the IC & Nat.Sec. teams to have identified the 9/11 plot is feeble.


    You do know the novel (none / 0) (#148)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 04:53:20 PM EST
    I am talking about, right?

    He was widely read.  To not conceive of jets being flown into buildings was rank stupidity.

    And, you know, Dick Cheney was reciting plot lines form the t.v. show 24.


    Debt of Honor; 1994 (none / 0) (#150)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 04:55:49 PM EST
    No one could have imagined such a thing, according to Condi.

    Well MKS (none / 0) (#151)
    by BTAL on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 04:57:59 PM EST
    you should start the crusade to force the federal govt. to hire Jack Bower to be the lead national defense canary in the coal mine - just so no future administration misses such obvious threats.

    Me too... (none / 0) (#149)
    by fishcamp on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 04:53:55 PM EST
    At (none / 0) (#153)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 05:08:57 PM EST
    least we have a mental muscle to strain, dealing with airheads is very strenuous now that you mention it. Don't you have a swamp to drink, er I mean drain?

    Ahhh (none / 0) (#155)
    by BTAL on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 05:12:24 PM EST
    knew it wouldn't take long for you to revert to the name calling ad hominem argument.  You are one of the biggest offenders of the name calling prohibition here.  Its offensive really.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#158)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 05:37:32 PM EST
    pal, you go around accusing of people of falsehoods, with nothing but your own BS narrative to back you. You brush off overwhelming historical evidence with a sneer, as you mock our intelligence with your mental muscle quip.

    Yeah I'm rude, when history, facts, logic and truth itself are mangled by morons, snark is the only weapon this particular inarticulate poster has left.

    I apologize to Jeralyn and any other reader who expects more decorum around these parts, but I will not apologize to you, and for everybody's sake I will  refrain from responding to you henceforth.


    Sorry pal (none / 0) (#162)
    by BTAL on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 06:50:26 PM EST
    Your apologies are accepted.

    But pal, the BS is in the hands of those holding it.  

    If you can't see both sides and continue to revert to rude behavior then, knock yourself out.

    I've admitted that the attack was tragic and will further admit that the Bush administration made mistakes.  However, no more than the Clinton administration also made.

    "Morons" - just can't help yourself can you.


    Actually (none / 0) (#156)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 05:20:57 PM EST
    he tried to catch OBL after he attacked and even sent missles but conservatives were yelling wag the dog and screaming. He did it despite the caterwauling of the GOP.

    False equivalency. By the time Bush was in office OBL had done a couple of attacks. Clinton even thwarted one attack that was supposed to happen at the Los Angeles airport and I remember conservatives whining about how they had to wait in line. So while not perfect Clinton at attempted to protect the nation from terrorism. Bush sat there with his thumb up his butt and then when the attacks actually happened after he had been in office for 9 months he said it was Bill Clinton's fault. And Bush never did get OBL. So sad too bad. The guy was legendarily inept.


    Nonsense and nice try (none / 0) (#157)
    by BTAL on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 05:28:15 PM EST
    to revise your previous statement.

    He bombed a milk factory.  Even Dems were critical of his wag the dog response of 100s of cruise missile attack.

    Face it, there was no heightened security warning issued by Clinton in the US as you stated.  


    The people (none / 0) (#159)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 05:57:45 PM EST
    who were critical were people like the far left not mainstream Dems and none of them were screaming wag the dog. That was the main province of the GOP. The ones on the far left were screaming that he shouldn't have done it because of civilians.

    False again. Read here about the foiled attack in 1999 of the LA aiport.

    And let's not forget that OBL attacked the world trade center in 1993. Only a fool or a legendary inept person would ignore warnings like Bush did. You can continue to apologize for him all you want but the fact of the matter is he was warned and brushed it off. Apparently according to Republicans they aren't smart enough to figure out a terrorist attack is imminent unless they are given the exact time and location. At the very minimum Bush could have put the information out there to make a heightened alert to warn airport but the idiotic putz was too clueless to even do that.


    Just address (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by BTAL on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 06:46:04 PM EST
    the main issue.  You claimed that Clinton invoked a higher state of warning/alert for the country.  

    That's where this started and you refuse to admit the incorrect statement.  


    And maybe be headed (none / 0) (#104)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 03:49:48 PM EST
    by Meatloaf or Gary Busey or Stone Cold Steve Austin.

    People who know how to grab the p*ssy, I mean bull, by the horns.


    A lot of his (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 05, 2017 at 07:21:53 PM EST
    nominations have problems due to the fact not that they are conservative but the fact that they are not even qualified. My senator David Perdue has apparently pulled his support for Sessions.

    Losing Perdue should (none / 0) (#53)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 09:44:33 AM EST
    sink Sessions.   Can't lose more than a couple of Republicans and still get confirmed.

    Perdue (none / 0) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 10:25:36 AM EST
    is in a real quandary with all this. He's up for reelection in 2020 and is going to have to run with Trump and Putin. Isakson might retire and he has quite a while before running again. So who knows what he might do.

    Manchin (none / 0) (#60)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 06:49:58 PM EST
    Is in for Sessions

    Two months (none / 0) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 08:32:24 PM EST
    ago Manchin was for Sessions. Two months ago Perdue was for Sessions. A lot has changed in the past two months with a lot of Sessions problems coming to the forefront. I'm not sure that the people of West Virginia would love the government seizing the property of family members who have only been accused of a crime even if they have no problem with Sessions neo confederate views on race.

    Here is George Will taking down Sessions link

    Sessions is a HUGE fan of civil seizure.


    Funnt stuff (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 05, 2017 at 08:03:28 PM EST
    Quite the imagination ...

    I too am not excited about Sessions, but (3.50 / 2) (#14)
    by Green26 on Thu Jan 05, 2017 at 12:20:25 AM EST
    I wonder what the other 16,000 law professors in the US think.

    "From 1998 until 2008, the number of law faculty at 195 ABA-accredited law schools grew from 12,200 to 17,080 -- a 40 percent increase."

    "Not too excited?" (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 05, 2017 at 10:44:02 AM EST
    Well, that is remarkably ambiguous. Since you take issue with the gist of this diary, perhaps you could tell us if you believe if Sessions should be confirmed.

    But that would be something--if a "Hillary supporter" were to say Sessions should be confirmed, don't you think?



    No Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 05, 2017 at 11:10:57 AM EST
    supporter would ever support Sessions being confirmed and I'm sure if you asked Hillary she would tell you the same thing.

    I have no view on whether Sessions should be (1.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Green26 on Thu Jan 05, 2017 at 11:19:39 AM EST
    confirmed. Haven't looked at anything about him recently. Just recall negative info from decades ago. Not planning to look into to it. Have other things I'd rather do. Have read that it's possible he wouldn't be confirmed. That would be fine. Assume he will be confirmed.

    Many of the Trump selectees appear to be generally in the Sessions category. Very objectionable to liberals, Dems and others. Mostly strong and "big" people. Will probably have sizable impacts.

    I'm not going to get all shook up about these things, because I have zero influence over who will be selected and confirmed. I will follow some of what they do later, when people are confirmed.

    Trump won. I am not going to spend much time and energy being upset or whining. It is what it is. Hopefully, he won't be as big of a disaster as many people think he will be, including me.


    Green, you write: (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 05, 2017 at 01:28:20 PM EST

    Mostly strong and "big" people. Will probably have sizable impacts.

    Spoken like a Trump supporter.  I do not agree these people are "strong" or "big."  Rhymes with "big," yes.

    You now sound as if you are barely interested in Sessions; yet, you went to the effort to pull up numbers to challenge this diary.  


    Of course, I'm not a Trump supporter (1.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Green26 on Thu Jan 05, 2017 at 05:57:37 PM EST
    and didn't vote for him, but nice try. 5 or 6 billionaires. Various multi-millionaires. Various generals. Head of Exxon. Mucky muck or two at places like Goldman Sachs. Sessions. Perry. Haley. Carson (?). Those are big people to me. They might not be good picks, or good people, or good for the country, but they are big people.

    Ahhhhhhhh ... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 05, 2017 at 08:04:53 PM EST
    So "big" = $.

    That's very telling.


    You should find out (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 05, 2017 at 02:14:56 PM EST
    Do a little research,  assuming your "question" is sincere.

    Until then,  that's a lot of actual experts, opening on a subject that's actually in their field of expertise.  Thought you were a big fan of expert opinions.  Guess not ...


    As has been said by many law faculty. . . . (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Towanda on Thu Jan 05, 2017 at 07:13:19 PM EST
    Have you ever endured a faculty meeting?

    Worse yet, a law faculty meeting?

    As has been said by several law faculty, in response to this letter:  That even this many law faculty agree on anything is a stunner.

    (Note:  I now have attended my final faculty meeting! But as I was ending my last day before retirement, I still was emailing with a dean about an issue that a former student raised . . . yesterday.  And there are more emails and meetings with the dean on that. Sigh.)


    Congratulations, to the excellent Towanda (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Peter G on Thu Jan 05, 2017 at 07:29:26 PM EST
    on your retirement. I wish I had an actually job, so I could retire! Self-employment doesn't seem to work that way. New book on the horizon, or mostly grandmothering?

    Thanks! (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by Towanda on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 04:30:12 PM EST
    No new book in mind, as the scholarly publishing field has become even more difficult in recent decades, as I found from my first to me second book -- but especially with my third book. The budget cuts that have hit academe also hit academic publishers, hard.

    So, in addition to grandparenting, my time is taken with decluttering -- going through files from decades of work to toss what I can throw out. I can't just toss it all, without separating out student records for shredding -- owing to privacy laws -- and I have to retain some records to still write refernces for some students.

    It's like an archaeological dig, as I unearth historical artifacts from teaching in the twentieth century, such as mimeographed syllabi and computer punch cards. Far more time than for research was spent on the exhausting and unending task of keeping up with technology in teaching -- especially as I pioneered in my department's online program.

    And just before my departure, my department was ranked number-one in the nation for its online History major! for quality as well as affordability. I guess that my epitaph is the same as that of a bargain-priced prostitute: She was good for the price?


    The old saw: (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 12:51:29 PM EST
    academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low, may have originated in self-deprecation, but is unfair.  

     Understandable, perhaps, by the unknowing non-academician, but inexcusable for the academician, since it underestimates the worth of a faculty member's work.  The stakes are hardly too low in advocating for particular curricular content and achieving a balance of competing interests.  And, for assuring the interests of students and maintaining academic freedom.

    I second Peter G's good wishes to you in the "next chapter" of your endeavors.


    How many do (3.00 / 4) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 05, 2017 at 07:42:16 AM EST
    you think support the Neo Confederate agenda of Sessions? That would be the answer to your question.

    Here's one of the non-signers, giving (none / 0) (#167)
    by Peter G on Tue Jan 10, 2017 at 03:26:06 PM EST
    If the law (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 04, 2017 at 08:35:32 AM EST
    professors are not enough read George Will's column in the Washington Post. It will be enough to scare the heck out of you regarding creepy Sessions.

    Deval Patrick, former (none / 0) (#2)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jan 04, 2017 at 10:18:55 AM EST
    governor of MA, argues against  connfirmation of Sessions: "At a time when our Nation is so divided, when so many feel so deeply that their lived experience is unjust, Mr. Sessions is the wrong person to place in charge of our justice system."

    Gov. Deval cites the 1985 case of Sessions failed atempt to criminalize voter assistance, and the failed federal judgeship nomination in 1986, on a bipartisan basis, among reasons.

    Sessions Is Way Down on My Worry List (none / 0) (#3)
    by RickyJim on Wed Jan 04, 2017 at 11:55:42 AM EST
    The Washington Post article has quotes from AA associates of Sessions that indicate his current racial insensitivity might be overstated.

    What gets me to awaken with a cold sweat in the middle of the night are Trump's anti-China/North Korea tweats. You never know if he is really serious about taking out North Korea with a preemptive strike.  Shouldn't China, for geographical reasons, be much more worried about the North Korean nuclear threat than the US?

    Isn't N Korea still some kind of (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 04, 2017 at 01:51:16 PM EST
    a client state of China? In any case, maybe the Chinese are worried about it - we don't have much public insight into their official thought process.

    There is nothing about Trump that is NOT appalling at best, horrifying at worst.


    Agree fully (none / 0) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 05, 2017 at 07:55:01 AM EST
    I'm sorry the GOP forces of fear over (none / 0) (#5)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 04, 2017 at 01:54:34 PM EST
    reason prevented the closing of Gitmo long ago. At the very least you would think they would care about the colossal waste of resources, but their hypocrisy about the budget is well known.

    what was the (none / 0) (#13)
    by linea on Wed Jan 04, 2017 at 11:27:16 PM EST
    absurd legal theory?

    guantanamo is on cuban soil thus the mutilated prisoners (previously tortured in cia "black sites") should submit legsl appeals to the cuban government? wasnt it something rediculous like that?

    i do not believe the us marines there are engaging in torture. i've met us marines here in seattle and i personally dont feel that they could engage in that sickness. in my opinion.


    Oy (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 05, 2017 at 07:55:55 AM EST
    Opinions (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Towanda on Thu Jan 05, 2017 at 07:08:01 PM EST
    need to be fact-based.  

    Check your facts.

    As for anecdotes, yes, as a Vietnam vet's wife, I know that many military did not participate in My Lai. But some did.  And that's a fact.


    The base at Guantanamo Bay (none / 0) (#21)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Jan 05, 2017 at 11:18:45 AM EST
    is not "Cuban soil." It is US soil. Just as is every US military base and embassy across the globe. That is why I don't understand the legal theory of keeping prisoners there. They are entitled to the same rights and are governed by the same Constitution as I am here in PA.

    Overseas bases (none / 0) (#23)
    by BTAL on Thu Jan 05, 2017 at 12:19:53 PM EST
    are not "US Soil".  They belong to host country.  The base "lease" and Status of Forces Agreements are what determine what are U.S. rights and what are the jurisdiction of the host nation.

    We have no SOFA with Cuba (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 05, 2017 at 02:46:22 PM EST
    But we have a treaty (none / 0) (#30)
    by BTAL on Thu Jan 05, 2017 at 03:23:05 PM EST
    that grants us use of Gitmo.  The Cubans never transferred ownership.

    It predates Castro (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 05, 2017 at 04:55:00 PM EST
    We are "allowed" to lease the acerage via a treaty we claim is operational that wasn't made with the existing government, and the Castros have never cashed the rental check that is sent yearly. Instead they made an enormous minefield outside the perimeter. Not any sort of functional agreement. But that's why the Bush Administration chose Gitmo for its detainees, because of the stark legal ambiguities involved.

    I think the pressure on the Sessions nomination (none / 0) (#6)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 04, 2017 at 01:57:24 PM EST
    really has a chance of success. At this point in his life, does he really want to deal with the aggravation? I think if the pressure is kept up he may very well withdraw. Hope so anyway.

    Not that any of the alternatives are any better...Guiliani or Christie would probably get it.

    My biggest worry about Sessions (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 05, 2017 at 08:23:44 AM EST
    He espouses the belief that permeates the public school system of Alabama that all these IEPs written for the education of Alabama's disabled children are placing undue cost burdens on school districts and undue stress on administrations and teachers. I do not anticipate he would enforce that portion of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

    My second immediate concern is how charmed he is with civil forfeiture, just robbing people. I understand why in 1984 legislators thought this was good legislation, but it bred evil corruption within law enforcement. Being military provides some protection, serving military is protected under their own act that prevents entities from railroading us. But that doesn't mean I don't understand the danger my community is placed in when removing everyone else's rights. It erodes confidence and decency, it destroys the fabric of functional healthy society.


    Yes, "not that (none / 0) (#7)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jan 04, 2017 at 02:14:37 PM EST
    the alternatives are any better."  That is the conundrum---the design is to have a reactionary administration.  If an SEC Commissioner is successfully bounced, Trump (or, more likely, Pence) can always find a suitable substitute from Goldman Sachs ---and on and on.  The swamp is being stocked in accord with the top gator.

    At this point (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 04, 2017 at 02:40:18 PM EST
    everybody has really low standards. A guy will pass that didn't rip off people and steal their homes from them.

    Actually, GA6, that's not true (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Peter G on Wed Jan 04, 2017 at 04:52:25 PM EST
    A guy who stole people's homes from them will also pass.

    And a gal....Pam Bondi got some (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 05, 2017 at 04:22:05 PM EST
    as yet unspecified position.

    Too bad (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 04, 2017 at 07:09:58 PM EST
    but the GOP is going to own that along with all the other bad picks Trump is making.

    Christie (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 04, 2017 at 02:39:09 PM EST
    maybe but Giuliani would not get it. I think Rand Paul has already said no to Rudy and it just takes one vote to kill the nomination.

    And (none / 0) (#49)
    by Nemi on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 06:44:46 AM EST
    Tr*mp's son-in-law has said no to Christie, so ...

    Endorsement has some weight (none / 0) (#42)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Jan 05, 2017 at 07:40:40 PM EST
    http://tinyurl.com/gvptyxy Alabama.com news

    While the younger Turner said he disagrees with Sessions "on some issues," he and Trump's attorney general nominee "share certain Alabama and American values, including a love for our state, its people and our country."


    That's really (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 05, 2017 at 09:42:55 PM EST
    sad and does nothing to address his love of seizing the property of citizens. My senator has apparently withdrawn his support of Sessions.

    Not per his Tweeter feed (none / 0) (#48)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 05:56:19 AM EST
     David Perdue ‏@sendavidperdue  18 Nov 2016
    .@SenatorSessions is a natural fit to lead our nation's Justice Department. My statement below:

    He pulled it (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 07:17:11 AM EST
    off his website. He had that same endorsement up on his website and pulled it down. Both he and Isakson are now only announcing that they are supporting Tillerson which is frankly quite hysterical.

    Wonder how long the opposition would continue (none / 0) (#27)
    by me only on Thu Jan 05, 2017 at 02:19:45 PM EST
    if Trump reminded everyone that Dick Cheney is available instead...

    I'll take Cheney over Sessions (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 05, 2017 at 04:58:19 PM EST
    He's so physically fecked he can't even tie a fly on his line. Real evil requires a modicum of energy. Dick Cheney for AG, make it happen.

    We would have to (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jan 05, 2017 at 05:24:46 PM EST
    send Cheney to law school before taking his Cabinet post.  But, then, this is the old or traditional way--qualifications and all.  And, of course, this is the Trump era.

    And Mattis goes to the mattresses (none / 0) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 08:19:48 AM EST
    Who could have predicted?

    Kind of (none / 0) (#59)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 06:49:00 PM EST
    Expected that. Trump transition team slipped Viola in , Viola seems more than competent, but Mattis wants people reporting to him, not directly to Trump, or his politicos.
    This happens in all administrations, but The Donald did put a team of strong willed individuals together, it should be interesting.

    Trainwrecks (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 07:29:58 PM EST
    are also "interesting", quit trying to normalize this one. I have never seen this level of pure chaos in any, much less all administrations.

    I won't argue the strong willed moniker(among many other less appealing ones) for many of his picks, but they already seem to be clashing with each other with Trump himself undermining them, seemingly at random.

    Like you I "kind of expected" this dysfunction... actually I and many, many more predicted it. Unlike you I can not brush it off as merely interesting and commonplace.

    Speaking for myself it's more of a hot mess than I expected, on every level.


    I would say (1.00 / 2) (#62)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 07:45:44 PM EST
    Quit trying to dramatize it.
    This is normal in any administration. The press is pushing this fake news , it will sort itself out,
    Or it won't, and only then will it be real news

    This is NOT (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 08:23:28 PM EST
    normal and we're sick of you guys trying to make Neo Nazis and the Klan into normal people. Yes, everyday Americans run around saying Seig Heil Trump and like to be bullied and abused or are bullies or abusers themselves. I have a better opinion of America than you do apparently. Good lord you people are sick and I'm noticing that more and more of these never Trumpers are starting to tout the same thing. They don't want to normalize Trump because Trump becomes what the GOP is going to be for the foreseen future. I'm doing it because I actually care about my fellow citizens DESPITE the color of their skin.

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 08:33:42 PM EST
    like all administration gets in twitter flame wars with the entire intelligence community.(Putin smiles).

    For someone who claims not to be in the totally bag for Trump, you seem to book absolutely no criticism of him.



    This administration isn't even (none / 0) (#67)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 08:38:43 PM EST
    The administration yet. They aren't responsible for any outcome or policy yet and already an on fire trainwreck

    He is not (none / 0) (#71)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 08:58:43 PM EST
    The President yet.
    Everything seems to be along just fine.
    The press may be pearl clutching, but they are so anti Trump,
    They have no credibility, and everyone knows it.

    when The Donald does something I am not fond of, I will say so. And it is to be expected, he campaigned of stuff I am not fond of.

    But everyone else here complains about everything The Donald does, says, breathes,

    Really no need for me to pile on,
    So I am relegated to just push back when I think things goe a bit overboard.


    The only ones with "no credibility" (none / 0) (#108)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 07:38:33 AM EST
    ... are his hypocritical defenders and supporters.

    Really? Lol (1.00 / 1) (#110)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 10:40:55 AM EST
    Nah, I think the American press takes the cake.

    Whatever "news" they print, if it is beneficial for one political party or the other, both will claim the press has no credibility.
    Same with the supporters of both parties.
    Depending upon the "news" reported, either side will claim the press has no credibility.

    Just read your comments during the primary and election cycle.


    Yes - really (none / 0) (#111)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 01:01:34 PM EST
    Don't think I stuttered.

    I know what I said in my posts and, as usual, your claim is false.

    Anything else you need corrected?


    Nah (none / 0) (#112)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 01:12:51 PM EST
    You don't have to stutter.
    WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans' trust and confidence in the mass media "to report the news fully, accurately and fairly" has dropped to its lowest level in Gallup polling history, with 32% saying they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media. This is down eight percentage points from last year.

    You know what you wrote, right? (none / 0) (#114)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 02:01:57 PM EST
    The press may be pearl clutching, but they are so anti Trump,
    They have no credibility, and everyone knows it.

    Psssttt ... your linkless quote doesn't support your statement.  Just the opposite, in fact.  But - like your party's candidate - you have a tendency to frequently make exaggerated/false claims, so it's not a surprise.


    Well (none / 0) (#115)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 02:17:03 PM EST
    68% saying they have little or no trust in the media, What? You want it to be 90% before you can say they have no credibility.

    And yet the president-elect's (none / 0) (#116)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 02:55:13 PM EST
    perceived credibility rests almost entirely on a lifelong, mutually beneficial  partnership with the untrustworthy media.

    Remember when you were comparing him to Travolta in Saturday Night Fever, Trevor?

    Where did you get that from?

    You might as well have quoted a commercial jingle.


    It's not what I want, it's what YOU wrote (none / 0) (#117)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 03:06:29 PM EST
    The press may be pearl clutching, but they are so anti Trump,
    They have no credibility, and everyone knows it

    I found the article you failed to link to.  Turns out that drop is fueled in large part by Republicans who always demonize the media, because they prefer to deal in Faux News and rightwing radio than facts and reality.  Instead, much like your party's leader, they prefer to whine about the media and invent their own fake "facts".  When you claim that "everyone knows" they have "no" credibility, you might want to look at the actual results of the poll you're posting.  Only 27% of the respondents said they have no credibility (mostly Republicans who hate the media for dealing in facts) - so your own poll disproves your claim.


    Harder than it looks, huh?


    Speaking of credibility (none / 0) (#119)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 05:46:14 PM EST
    While it is clear Americans' trust in the media has been eroding over time, the election campaign may be the reason that it has fallen so sharply this year.

    May be?? Now that is just sooooo definitive.

    What else?


    With many Republican leaders and conservative pundits saying Hillary Clinton has received overly positive media attention, while Donald Trump has been receiving unfair or negative attention, this may be the prime reason their relatively low trust in the media has evaporated even more.

    May be again?? Wow, there's no doubt, eh? ;-)

    But may be it isn't the Repubs fault that they told the facts and the consumer recognized it? Think 40 years of Hillary's lies had something to do with it?



    Sorry (none / 0) (#120)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 06:13:27 PM EST
    but "the media" includes your favorite fonts of credibility, wingnut radio and Fixed Noose er, Fox News.

    And 65 million of your own countryman (the non-Russian-speaking ones that is) don't fit quite so neatly into that cartoon you're drawing.


    You'll need to try that again (none / 0) (#121)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 08:46:01 PM EST
    Preferably in English.  Whatever you're blathering about has nothing to do with what I was saying, but I'll try to make sense of it:

    While it is clear Americans' trust in the media has been eroding over time, the election campaign may be the reason that it has fallen so sharply this year.

    May be?? Now that is just sooooo definitive.

    What else?

    Uhhmmmm ... who are you arguing with?  No idea what you're complaining about, but if you have a question for Gallup, you should let them know.

    With many Republican leaders and conservative pundits saying Hillary Clinton has received overly positive media attention, while Donald Trump has been receiving unfair or negative attention, this may be the prime reason their relatively low trust in the media has evaporated even more.

    May be again?? Wow, there's no doubt, eh? ;-)

    Again, talk to Gallup.  But that's what Republicans do.  They hear actual news and facts they don't like, then they attack real journalists while citing fake wingnut news and blogs.

    But no one needs to tell you that ...

    But may be it isn't the Repubs fault that they told the facts and the consumer recognized it? Think 40 years of Hillary's lies had something to do with it?


    Actually, "the consumers" recognized that she was the better candidate - by @ 3 million votes.  But the "40 years" of Hillary's lies" part was funny coming from a Trumper - someone who supports the candidate who lies more in a week than Hillary has in her entire life.


    You expect some sort of (none / 0) (#68)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 08:42:34 PM EST
    Change from Mattis on unqualified stooges? * snort *

    When hell freezes over


    And I dare Trump to dump Mattis now (none / 0) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 08:49:24 PM EST
    I dare him

    Not even in office and hated to the core by the Corps

    Do it Donald! I double dog dare you

    Parade the first to die front lines' Warrior Monk around for photo shoots and then cut him.


    who is (none / 0) (#70)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 08:55:14 PM EST
    the unqualified stooge?

    Many (none / 0) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 09:01:26 PM EST
    And this response from Mattis was predicted 2 weeks ago by his past aides to who Trump was attempting to place in top slots at the Pentagon.

    Carson (none / 0) (#73)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 09:21:09 PM EST
     Perry , Devoss and MCMahon to name a few.  Not as scary as the pure predators like Mnuchin and Pudzer

    Actually (none / 0) (#74)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 09:32:54 PM EST
    The comment was referring to someone under Mattis

    You expect some sort of (none / 0) (#68)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 08:42:34 PM EST
    Change from Mattis on unqualified stooges? * snort *
    When hell freezes over

    Perry Devoss and McMahon all are accomplished.
    Working in government is not a unique skill to acquire. Someone who can mange  and has managed organizations should do just fine


    ROTFLMAO (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 09:42:03 PM EST
    Devoss knows nothing about education except destroying people's access to education. Look at her record in Michigan and the destruction she wrought. I love people who won't even sent their own children to public schools and think they are so special that they don't have to pay taxes telling everybody in public schools what to do. She's one of those people who are ignorant on a subject but thinks she's a genius. No wonder Trump picked her.

    Perry is nothing short of an idiot on all accounts.

    Linda McMahon is an entertainment person. I have to say though turning a staid organization like the small business administration into a freak show is probably what she'll do. She might run up the insurance costs for you and I though. Dumping over chairs and desks and wrestling might cause some damage.


    i agree (none / 0) (#76)
    by linea on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 10:49:54 PM EST
    personally, i feel there should only be community schools; there shouldnt be independent schools.

    but if there are independent schools, everybody still needs to pay for community schools.

    i heard this somewhere, "everybody pays taxes for the roads, you can buy a hellicopter, but you still need to pay taxes for the roads."


    Everybody should pay for (none / 0) (#107)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 07:28:19 AM EST
    schools...then the money divided among all the students/parents and let them support the school they like.

    Yes, that was (3.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 10:01:41 AM EST
    the theory behind segregation and Jim Crow.

    Say what? (3.00 / 2) (#113)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 01:17:54 PM EST
    The theory behind segregation was.......let the student/parent pick the school they wanted to attend??


    The things I do learn from GA6.



    Go read Trevor (none / 0) (#77)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 05:35:33 AM EST
    And let us keep in mind (none / 0) (#78)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 05:38:19 AM EST
    That your profound ability to assess Pentagon qualified is sorely lacking in real world experience.

    Virtually (none / 0) (#79)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 07:17:54 AM EST
    everyone is "accomplished" in some field, very few of those fields would provide one with the tools to run a large government agency. Michael Brown was an accomplished lawyer and show horse maven but we all witnessed his abject failure at FEMA.

    Ben Carson is an extremely accomplished surgeon, but in his own(spokesman) words:

    "Dr. Carson feels he has no government experience, he's never run a federal agency," Carson's close friend Armstrong Williams said. "The last thing he would want to do was take a position that could cripple the presidency."
    Yet he gets HUD ????

    Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 08:00:00 AM EST
    Running a large government agency is not a specialized skill,

    As far as someone like Carson, he is not dumb, far from it. As long as he attaches a couple of people from within the organization to help implement the goals and direction Carson and The Donald want to go, it should be fine.


    Trevor (none / 0) (#81)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 08:44:09 AM EST
    when you go to get a knee replacement done you should ask a welder to do it since evidently experience in that particular field doesn't matter. Any experience is the same as any other experience is what you are saying.

    Carson is what I would call a savant. he's very smart in his specialty but a complete idiot in other areas. But he wouldn't take HHS which he at least has some knowledge of to be head of HUD which he has zero knowledge of. I mean that is just bizarre. Maybe he thinks HUD should be building pyramids to store grain in or something.


    Trevor, you are not dumb either, (none / 0) (#82)
    by fishcamp on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 09:20:40 AM EST
    but could you run a specialized government agency?  It does take a specialized person, simply because the agency is specialized

    Yes, and when (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 09:41:07 AM EST
    their ability to run the agency effectively is dependent upon having effective people not only doing the work, but also, having the special knowledge needed, their is likely to be trouble. Unless, the goal is to have an energetic front man--another quality missing in Carson.

    Juilian Castro (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by BTAL on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 09:56:55 AM EST
    did not have any specialized skills relating to HUD prior to his taking the position.

    He was mayor (none / 0) (#86)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 10:02:58 AM EST
    which means running a town. Mayors deal with housing issues. Carson has run nothing. He performed surgery. Doctors don't run their own offices. They hire people to do that. However if he was at HHS you could argue that at least he had a background in the area. Carson has never run anything and has no experience in housing whatsoever. However almost everybody Trump has been putting in positions is incompetent or knows nothing about that what they are being put in charge of. Rick Perry you can say at least has experience running something but he has zero knowledge of science. However this is a feature of the Trump agenda not a bug. The less knowledge you have about an area the better it seems.

    He was (none / 0) (#88)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 10:05:51 AM EST
    Mayor of a large city, where presumably dealt with housing, urban and development issues on a daily basis. Compared to Carson he was born to run HUD.

    The Mayor of San Antonio (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by BTAL on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 10:19:07 AM EST
    is more a figurehead (paid only $4,000 per year).  SA is a City Manager form of governance - that is where the power and skills are located.  

    Correct (none / 0) (#91)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 10:22:27 AM EST
    He had the title of Mayor,
    But in San Antonio, the Mayor is responsible for zip, nada, nothing

    Absolutely a figurehead


    Actually (none / 0) (#94)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 10:38:48 AM EST
    can you provide a link verifying that? The only thing I found by googling was conservative propaganda.

    Castro (none / 0) (#97)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 10:54:20 AM EST


    The Council hires a City Manager to serve as the City's chief administrator. The City Manager is responsible for carrying out the actions and policies of the council by overseeing the day-to-day operation of the organization. Council members also rely on the city manager to provide them with professional advice before they take action on a specific issue.

    The council-manager form of government is the most popular structure of government organization in the United States. Utilizing this form of administration, San Antonio voters elect 11 representatives (10 district representatives and a mayor) to pass laws and establish policies for the city. The Mayor and each member of council is paid $20 per meeting attended. The Mayor is paid an additional $3,000 annually.


    That is no (none / 0) (#99)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 11:04:47 AM EST
    different than any other mayor in the country.

    From google (none / 0) (#98)
    by BTAL on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 11:01:45 AM EST
    "San Antonio Mayor Salary"

    San Antonio's Mayor Julián Castro receives an annual stipend of just $3,000, plus $20 for every Council meeting attended, of which there are usually about two a month, except in July. City Council members receive no extra pay beyond the $20 per meeting fee, according to the city clerk's office.

    Links to:  bizjournals.com

    After Castro left the city upped the Mayor's salary via ballot referendum to $61,xxx for the current mayor ballotpedia.org but the City Manager is still the Chief Executive per the City of San Antonio website.


    So what? (none / 0) (#100)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 11:07:05 AM EST
    That is pretty typical of most mayoral positions in the US. Many mayors hold other jobs. That still doesn't prove your point that the mayor is constitutionally weaker than any other mayor in the country.

    So it means that (none / 0) (#101)
    by BTAL on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 11:27:02 AM EST
    Mayor of SA does not require special skills nor is tasked with running/managing the city.  Hence, Castro had no special skills to become Sec. HUD.

    From the City of SA website:

    City Manager (my emphasis):

    The daily business of City operations is the responsibility of the City Manager, the Chief Executive Officer, appointed by the Mayor and City Council. The City Manager prepares recommendations and implements the policy direction approved by the Mayor and City Council. The City Manager is responsible for the administration of City services by exercising effective leadership and management of the City. City personnel report to the City Manager.


    Mayor Taylor is focused on making San Antonio a globally competitive city where all residents are connected to opportunities for prosperity. To achieve this, some of the mayor's initiatives include developing a sustainable city budget, implementing the Comprehensive Master Plan, creating a job-friendly environment, growing the workforce, investing in human capital, establishing affordable and livable communities and building and maintaining basic infrastructure.

    2nd fiddle when it comes to actually running the City.


    Actually (none / 0) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 11:34:51 AM EST
    no, the city manager just follows the orders of the mayor. I mean it is set up that same way here in my town and the city manager does not have more power than the mayor. The city manager actually is below the mayor and the city council in authority and operates as their employee not a decision maker.

    Management skills are required (none / 0) (#90)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 10:20:53 AM EST
    Ability to run large organizations.
    Set goals , plans, budgets.
    Choose effective personnel to implement the strategies.
    Organized , follow up on all actions implemented to reach desired goals.
    Individuals that are driven to succeed, smart, and have done it before, managed organizations are well suited to run a government agency.

    For instance - Sylvia Mathews Burwell
    Secretary of Health and Human Services under Barack Obama
    The Secretary of Health & Human Services is responsible for protecting the health of all Americans and providing essential human services. The Secretary runs a department focused on conducting medical research, preventing the outbreak of diseases, and assuring the safety of food and drugs., in addition to administering financial assistance for low income families and protecting against child, domestic, and drug abuse.

    She was Deputy Chief of Staff, And Director of OMB. Neither have anything to do medical research disease, safety of food and drugs.

    Sally Jewel - Sec of Interior
    CEO of REI, Washington Mutual

    Chuck Hagel Defense

    Anthony Foxx Secretary of Transportation under Barack Obama---Mayor of Charlotte

    Leon Panetta   Director CIA  
    Chief of Staff, Clinton Administration
    Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Clinton Administration


    Those (none / 0) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 10:29:16 AM EST
    people you named have experience both in running a large area and experience in the area they are running. Trump's appointees don't nearly reach that standard and really are the lowest standard of appointees I think I've ever seen. Though it seems that Republicans have sent the word out don't work for him. So I'm sure he's left with pulling out the dregs to nominate for positions.

    No they didn't (none / 0) (#93)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 10:33:45 AM EST
    Thats why I chose them, they had little or no experience whatsoever for their job as Secretary.

    Leon Panetta (1.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 10:43:25 AM EST
    sat in on daily intelligence briefings as Chief of Staff for Bill Clinton. So you are wrong again. Trump's nominees are basically the dregs of the GOP or Putin stooges and apologists.

    Lol (none / 0) (#96)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 10:48:26 AM EST
    Sitting in on Intelligence briefings qualifies one to be CIA Director

    No, what qualified Panetta was his managerial abilities, not that he listened to top secret reports every morning


    It's more (none / 0) (#103)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 11:40:00 AM EST
    experience than any of Trump's appointees have? I mean those bozos don't even believe the intelligence communities reports. Trump is appointing a veritable freak show to run everything, no one is qualified for what they are going to be doing, very few have any kind of experience running anything and then you have his creepy alt-right senior advisors. However I hope you will continue to defend and apologize for all this. It makes defeating you at the polls even easier. I'm gonna love those ads with people marching with swastika signs for Trump and Spencer's alt-right convention with people saying Seig Heil Trump and then ads with Tillerson clinking champagne glasses with Putin.

    I (none / 0) (#85)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 09:59:26 AM EST
    don't know why you keep coming around to this silly "specialized skill" strawman. Virtually every job from dishwasher to neurosurgeon come with a minimum skillset.  For dishwashers that would include the ability to stand for hours and show up on time, for neurosurgeons it's a medical degree, advanced training and a steady hand, for agency heads it should be knowledge of the issues, management skills and the ability to face political reality.

    You keep telling us that Trump's appointees don't need no stinkin skillset, as usual, you are wrong.


    Basically (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 10:05:23 AM EST
    is the dumbing down that George W. Bush did on steroids with Trump. Horse lawyers should run FEMA. Idiots should run everything.

    You might as well argue (none / 0) (#105)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 07, 2017 at 04:09:26 PM EST
    with a Satanist about who should be Pope than argue with a fundamentalist libertarian like Trevor about who should head HUD.

    According to libertarian dogma, HUD shouldn't exist in the first place, because it's the 2nd greatest evil known to humankind, a "Big Government program" which is supported by that unparalleled Evil-to-end-all-Evils, taxation -- which are always a "coercive" impingement on personal liberty (second only to death, having to use the toilet and drunk driving laws).

    So of course any libertarian who gets excited (in every way imaginable) by hearing the names Friedman, Rand, or Rothbard spoken aloud, would want someone picked to head HUD with the highest likelihood of hollowing it out from inside. Which makes Carson the perfect choice.


    You must be phucking kidding (5.00 / 5) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 06, 2017 at 08:36:38 PM EST
    Not even inaugurated and total chaos, appointments utterly unqualified.