Donald Trump offers Jeff Sessions attorney general post


Yes. It was in the 80s. Ronald Reagan nominated him to the District Court for the Southern District of Alabama.

The Senate Judiciary Committee, in a highly unusual vote, declined to recommend him to the Senate floor for a vote, by a vote of 10-8 (with two Republican senators voting with the Democrats, thus dooming his nomination).

There were allegations of racism during his confirmation hearings that apparently were credible to enough senators to deny him the appointment.


Sessions desegregated schools and took on the KKK.


There, there! I was waiting for the charge of racism and here it comes, without fail.


Relax. I’m not accusing Sessions, or Trump, of anything. A question was asked. I gave a factual answer, that’s all.

If you really want to know what happened, those hearings were a matter of public record. You could probably dig up a transcript, or at least contemporary news accounts.

All I gave here was a brief summary. I wasn’t editorializing. I didn’t give my opinion. I don’t really have an opinion about this matter.


This from a fake news site. Show me a real reference to Sessions actions in desegregating schools.


What do recommend? The Huffington Post, New York Times, Washington Post, or other liberally bias publications? Is anything they print really viable?

Town Hall is mainly collection of conservative based editorials. I don’t think anyone is trying buffalo someone that this isn’t what it is. It is very clear what their bias is. It is not a news magazine. Obviously they present their side of the story through their eyes, nothing wrong with that. They aren’t masquerading as anything else. It is not the News and nothing but the news

If you are looking for a straight forward just the news information, none of our major networks fill that requirement. One would be challenged to find a truly unbiased representation of the news anymore.

Sessions will be fine in this role. Does he have a conservative bias? Of course. Will he be unfair? I don’t think so. If he did have another opinion 40 yrs ago does it have relevance now? What has he had to say or do in the last 20 yrs that would reflect a form of bigotry? I don’t know what he said or did 40 yrs ago. Are we all to be judged on something that was done or said 40 yrs ago? Most of would have a problem, I’m sure.

If you want to see someone do a 180, remember George Wallace in the 1960s and 1970s? He took a significantly different approach later in his career than he did in his early days.


If you don’t know how to tell a fake news site from a real news site there is very little I can do to help you.


Perhaps it is not a conservative bias but a deeper understanding of the Constitution as written. And who among us, if we are old enough, has not changed opinions we had thirty years ago?


Thank you for posting this. I think many of us are too quick to label someone a racist.


And I think many of us are too quick to believe everything posted on a fake news site.


I do not know, but it is at minimum an editorial site, a conservative blog, not a news site, at least not in the sense of journalism. I tried to follow some links and they circled around to similar sites. The “mainstream media” has nothing on the new conservative news when it comes to bias and inaccuracy. Best to check everything out pretty well.

That being said, some of the things said by Sessions when he was accused of racism were pretty thin. Half are based on opposition to groups or policies where legitimate opposition could exist apart from racist. There was one joke that wasn’t even too bad, and a couple of hearsay allegations. That said, perception is a large part of reality. If Trump truly meant what he said about wanting to be the president for all Americans, he could not have picked a worse, more divisive candidate. Therefore, Trump is showing he is going to be more of a steamroller President than a leader, much to the detriment of the country and the Republican party at midterms. If Congress becomes too much of a rubber stamp, the Democrats will control both houses in 2018 (my prediction).

I can’t stand him for his immigration stance. It is in opposition to what our bishops have been teaching. I am hoping at least a few Republicans will oppose this nomination, though I am not hopeful.


I think you make too much of this. Any lead in the popular vote she has comes from her winning overwhelming majorities in NYC and LA. Take those two cities away, and she doesn’t. It was the values of NYC and LA that Trump supporters rejected, so I doubt the their feelings will be given too much consideration.


Actually I did find one kernel of truth in that fake news story. Jeff Sessions is reported, even by mainstream media, of having said “I signed 10 pleadings attacking segregation…”, referring to his time as Assistant US Attorney in Alabama. What is not so clear is if this “signing” was equivalent to “putting the full weight of his personal convictions behind”. I don’t know. Maybe the circumstance of those 10 pleadings made it impossible for him to refuse. His other actions with respect to civil rights make it hard to imagine him as a real champion of desegregation, spending his political capital to do so. He also did prosecute and convict some members of the KKK in a murder case, but that is a pretty low bar. The most we can say is that he is not the “spawn of Satan”, as referenced in that article, which is a far cry from saying he will make a great attorney general.


Yes, and you take away a few equally populated Republican strongholds and Trump doesn’t win the electoral college. Same thing.


The charges against Sessions amounted to nothing more than hearsay. He was, however, one of the first nominees to undergo this type of grilling during senate confirmation. The year before him, Scalia was approved 98-0. The year after him, Bork was destroyed by Kennedy et al, and court nominations have never been the same since. Given that the case against Bork was literally nothing more than a smear campaign, there is little reason to believe there are substantive objections to Sessions.


Perhaps you should read my post again, I aptly described it. The site even labels itself as a “conservative” news source, columnists, etc. if you don’t want things from a conservative perspective, there are a thousand other liberal options to choose from. (Ican’t help you anymore than that). Fake new? It is an definitely conservatively opinionated as are the Huffington Post, Washington Post, and Huffington Post liberally opinionated. at least Town Hall labels themselves as what they are, unlike the other “newspapers” mentioned.


What cities of 1M+ population are Republican strongholds? I’ll save you the trouble of looking it up. The answer is none. Even in the “Republican stronghold” of Texas, the mayors of Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio, Texas are all Democrats.


Here’s the thing, if the statement below (made by Trump’s communications director Jason Miller) is false, where are the allegations disproving it? “You know, when Senator Sessions was U.S. attorney, he filed a number of desegregation lawsuits in Alabama and he also voted in favor of the 30-year extension of the Civil Rights Act,” … “He also voted to confirm Attorney General Eric Holder and even spearheaded the effort toward giving the Congressional Gold Medal to Rosa Parks.”
It is easy to dismiss everything that doesn’t come from an “approved” source, but if any of these claims are false it would be a trivial thing to disprove them, something you would expect every “approved” source would jump at the chance to do. Since no one has contested these claims it seems likely they are all true.


Why go to the most biased sources you can find - for either the left or the right? Why not look for real news sources that make at least some attempt at truth and objectivity? Any article that starts out with “Dear Lefties, Spawn Of Satan Jeff Sessions Actually Took On The KKK and Desegregated Schools” is obviously making no such attempt, and should be disregarded by anyone looking for the truth. As it turns out, I was able to confirm a tiny bit of truth alluded to in that article, as I posted earlier, but only after I had verified it from other sources. I do the same with info from left-leaning publications.


Why do you arbitrarily restrict me to removing city populations? If you can remove cites I can remove rural areas. “Republican stronghold” is a concept that need not mean “a physically dense population”. The fact is that you arbitrarily selected a group of people without whom Hillary could not have won the popular vote. I could arbitrarily select a different group of people without whom Trump would not have been elected. And I think I could do it by removing fewer people than you did.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit