Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Funniest thing.Just for you Senator Warren!
STFU? Noooope, all McConnell did was hand Warren a MEGAPHONE.
Her reading would be mostly ignored if not for all the gag order headline making from Republicans.
THANKS dumb-asses!
Read Coretta Scott King's Letter That Got Sen. Elizabeth Warren Silenced
Read Coretta Scott King's Letter That Got Sen. Elizabeth Warren Silenced
"Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to express my
strong opposition to the nomination of Jefferson Sessions for
federal district judgeship for the Southern District of Alabama.
My longstanding commitment which I shared with my husband,
Martin, to protect and enhance the rights of Black Americans,
rights which include equal access toithe democratic process,
compels me to testify today.
Civil rights leaders, including my husband and Albert
Turner, have fought long and hard to achieve free and unfettered
access to the ballot box. Mr. Sessions has used-the awesome
power of his office to chill the free exercise of the vote by
black citizens in the district he now seeks to serve as a federal judge.
This simply cannot be allowed to happen. Mr. Sessions
conduct as U.S. Attorney, from his politically-motivated voting
fraud prosecutions to his indifference toward criminal violations
of civil rights laws, indicates that he lacks the temperament,
fairness and judgment to be a federal judge.
The Voting Rights Act was, and still is, vitally important
to the future of democracy in the United States.
<snip>
A person who has exhibited so much hostility to the enforcement of those laws, and thus, to the exercise of those rights by Black people should not be elevated to the federal bench.
The irony of Mr. Sessions' nomination is that, if
confirmed, he will be given life tenure for doing with a
federal prosecution what the local sherifls accomplished
twenty years ago with clubs and cattle prods.
Twenty years ago, when we marched from Selma to Montgomery, the fear of
voting was real, as the broken bones and bloody heads in
Selma and Marion bore witness. As my husband wrote at the
time, "it was net just a sick imagination that conjured up
the vision of a public official. sworn to uphold the law,
who forced an inhuman march upon hundreds of Negro children;
who ordered the Rev. James Bevel to be chained to his
sickbed; who clubbed a Negro woman registrant. and who
callously inflicted repeated brutalities and indignities
upon nonviolent Negroes peacefully petitioning for their
constitutional right to vote..."
The bolded part is what McConnell cited as his objection when invoking the rule to gag her.
Mitch McConnell, the Republican majority leader, objected that Warren had broken Senate rules that prohibit one member impugning the conduct of another. Senators then voted 49-43 to uphold a ruling in McConnell’s favour.
THIS^^^ is why she was shut out. She broke a rule that she had been warned about several times.
What did she specifically say that broke the rule?
In order to silence a duly elected US Senator you should have a specific statement
What was it?
Here, she was reading from this.....10 pages worth
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3456732/scottkingletter2.pdf
and here is the rule they were referring to....
Under Rule 19, senators are not allowed to “directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator”.
You have ten pages to work with
Show me a specific statement that you object to
This wasn't about me.....it's about why Warren was blocked......it broke Senate rules.
I'm still looking for a single statement that breaks the rule
What are you offended by?
The debate is over Jeff Sessions the Attorney General nominee, not Senator Sessions.
If he was not a Senator too, the rule invoked to silence Warren would not have applied, and could not have been used to silence her.
So with this cheap move, the GOP has effectively decided that sitting Senators who get nominated to Executive Branch positions get special treatment not afforded to anybody else.
But hey, if you don't like Warren's politics it's all good, right?
Do you want to discuss how un-American and racist the NAACP is?"King also took issue with the aggressiveness in which Sessions pursued the case at that time. She said witnesses who testified were pressured and intimidated into submitting "correct" testimony.
"Many elderly blacks were visited multiple times by the FBI who then hauled them over 180 miles by bus to a grand jury in Mobile when they could more easily have testified at a grand jury twenty miles away in Selma," said King.
"These voters, and others, have announced they are now never going to vote again."
A jury would eventually dismiss all charges against the three. Sessions, in 1986, had his nomination to the federal judgeship defeated by the Senate Judiciary Committee amid allegations of other racist claims which included alleged statements that he called the NAACP "un-American."
Coretta Scott King's 1986 letter opposing Sessions adds last-minute drama to confirmation hearings
Lies.The debate is over Jeff Sessions the Attorney General nominee, not Senator Sessions.
If he was not a Senator too, the rule invoked to silence Warren would not have applied, and could not have been used to silence her.
So with this cheap move, the GOP has effectively decided that sitting Senators who get nominated to Executive Branch positions get special treatment not afforded to anybody else.
But hey, if you don't like Warren's politics it's all good, right?
This rule is rarely invoked
It is meant to protect Senators doing their job not persons who are under a Senate confirmation
To provide Sessions with additional protections that were not available to all the other Trump appointees is a breach of power
What did she specifically say that broke the rule?
In order to silence a duly elected US Senator you should have a specific statement
What was it?
Here, she was reading from this.....10 pages worth
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3456732/scottkingletter2.pdf
and here is the rule they were referring to....
Under Rule 19, senators are not allowed to “directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator”.
You have ten pages to work with
Show me a specific statement that you object to
This wasn't about me.....it's about why Warren was blocked......it broke Senate rules.
I'm still looking for a single statement that breaks the rule
What are you offended by?
Here's her full speech......or as much was allowed.
She was initially warned by Senator Steve Daines, the Presiding Officer from Montana, about breaking the rule somewhere around 23:20(?) about her previous quotes from Kennedy's letter of a setting Senator being a disgrace.
Then at 49:18(?) Mitch McConnell stated she again broke the ruling by quoting Kings comments in her letter saying 'Senator Sessions has used the awesome power of his office to chill the free exercise of the vote by black citizens'. McConnell's charge was that she was impuning the motives and conduct of a colleague of which she had been previously warned against.
Not with a racist dirtbag like you.Do you want to discuss how un-American and racist the NAACP is?"King also took issue with the aggressiveness in which Sessions pursued the case at that time. She said witnesses who testified were pressured and intimidated into submitting "correct" testimony.
"Many elderly blacks were visited multiple times by the FBI who then hauled them over 180 miles by bus to a grand jury in Mobile when they could more easily have testified at a grand jury twenty miles away in Selma," said King.
"These voters, and others, have announced they are now never going to vote again."
A jury would eventually dismiss all charges against the three. Sessions, in 1986, had his nomination to the federal judgeship defeated by the Senate Judiciary Committee amid allegations of other racist claims which included alleged statements that he called the NAACP "un-American."
Coretta Scott King's 1986 letter opposing Sessions adds last-minute drama to confirmation hearings
Do you want to discuss how un-American and racist the NAACP is?"King also took issue with the aggressiveness in which Sessions pursued the case at that time. She said witnesses who testified were pressured and intimidated into submitting "correct" testimony.
"Many elderly blacks were visited multiple times by the FBI who then hauled them over 180 miles by bus to a grand jury in Mobile when they could more easily have testified at a grand jury twenty miles away in Selma," said King.
"These voters, and others, have announced they are now never going to vote again."
A jury would eventually dismiss all charges against the three. Sessions, in 1986, had his nomination to the federal judgeship defeated by the Senate Judiciary Committee amid allegations of other racist claims which included alleged statements that he called the NAACP "un-American."
Coretta Scott King's 1986 letter opposing Sessions adds last-minute drama to confirmation hearings
Lies.The debate is over Jeff Sessions the Attorney General nominee, not Senator Sessions.
If he was not a Senator too, the rule invoked to silence Warren would not have applied, and could not have been used to silence her.
So with this cheap move, the GOP has effectively decided that sitting Senators who get nominated to Executive Branch positions get special treatment not afforded to anybody else.
But hey, if you don't like Warren's politics it's all good, right?
This rule is rarely invoked
It is meant to protect Senators doing their job not persons who are under a Senate confirmation
To provide Sessions with additional protections that were not available to all the other Trump appointees is a breach of power
He is a Senator.
If Pocahontas wants to trash his reputation she's gonna have to do it in the press....where she can be sued for slander.
Do you want to discuss how un-American and racist the NAACP is?"King also took issue with the aggressiveness in which Sessions pursued the case at that time. She said witnesses who testified were pressured and intimidated into submitting "correct" testimony.
"Many elderly blacks were visited multiple times by the FBI who then hauled them over 180 miles by bus to a grand jury in Mobile when they could more easily have testified at a grand jury twenty miles away in Selma," said King.
"These voters, and others, have announced they are now never going to vote again."
A jury would eventually dismiss all charges against the three. Sessions, in 1986, had his nomination to the federal judgeship defeated by the Senate Judiciary Committee amid allegations of other racist claims which included alleged statements that he called the NAACP "un-American."
Coretta Scott King's 1986 letter opposing Sessions adds last-minute drama to confirmation hearings
NAACP is a patriotic organization that has done more to fight for freedom of Americans than any other organization
so just a question is there any facts to support the letter? Why is it most blacks in Alabama like Sessions then? I don't get you stupid fks. cuckoo.wow! the letter needs to be made part of the record in the sessions hearings....it's disturbing, to say the least!
Coretta Scott King's 1986 statement and testimony on Jeff...
so just a question is there any facts to support the letter? Why is it most blacks in Alabama like Sessions then? I don't get you stupid fks. cuckoo.wow! the letter needs to be made part of the record in the sessions hearings....it's disturbing, to say the least!
Coretta Scott King's 1986 statement and testimony on Jeff...
Here, she was reading from this.....10 pages worth
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3456732/scottkingletter2.pdf
and here is the rule they were referring to....
Under Rule 19, senators are not allowed to “directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator”.
You have ten pages to work with
Show me a specific statement that you object to
This wasn't about me.....it's about why Warren was blocked......it broke Senate rules.
I'm still looking for a single statement that breaks the rule
What are you offended by?
Here's her full speech......or as much was allowed.
She was initially warned by Senator Steve Daines, the Presiding Officer from Montana, about breaking the rule somewhere around 23:20(?) about her previous quotes from Kennedy's letter of a setting Senator being a disgrace.
Then at 49:18(?) Mitch McConnell stated she again broke the ruling by quoting Kings comments in her letter saying 'Senator Sessions has used the awesome power of his office to chill the free exercise of the vote by black citizens'. McConnell's charge was that she was impuning the motives and conduct of a colleague of which she had been previously warned against.
That is a broad overreach
Both documents are a matter of public record from distinguished citizens and are directly related to Sessions fitness for the office he seeks
Do Republicans really think sessions record is off limits just because he is a Senator?
I watched back when he was nominated as the blacks in alabama were interviewed on TV and stated what a good and fair man he was. So, let's start with find someone today that can show he is a racist. can you?so just a question is there any facts to support the letter? Why is it most blacks in Alabama like Sessions then? I don't get you stupid fks. cuckoo.wow! the letter needs to be made part of the record in the sessions hearings....it's disturbing, to say the least!
Coretta Scott King's 1986 statement and testimony on Jeff...
Do you have any "credible" proof that "most blacks in Alabama like Sessions"?
all asked and answered during the hearings. so more .....from one of Jeff Sessions VICTIMS
READ MORE ABOUT IT HERE:
I tried to help black people vote. Jeff Sessions tried to put me in jail: Voices
While my husband and I were trying to help black people vote in Alabama, Jeff Sessions was trying to put us in jail.
Perry County in the 1960s was a hostile place to be black. To register to vote, a black resident needed to have a white “well to do” citizen to vouch for them. To enter the county courthouse, blacks had to use the back door. And to fight for our basic rights as Americans, we had to gather in the woods because so many black residents were afraid to be seen meeting in town.
Despite vicious segregation and this climate of fear, civil rights leaders and ordinary black residents organized to seek the right to vote. My husband, Albert Turner, served as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s Alabama field director and helped to lead voter registration efforts in Marion and Perry County. The U.S. Department of Justice and Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy helped to support our voter registration efforts and secure our basic rights. Federal registrars sent by Kennedy worked out of the Marion post office basement and helped to register hundreds of black voters.
In 1965, during a peaceful voting rights march in Marion, state troopers beat and shot Jimmie Lee Jackson, an Army veteran who had tried unsuccessfully to register to vote five different times. Jackson’s killing sparked the first Selma-to-Montgomery March and Bloody Sunday. His death, and too many others, played a significant role in the passage of the federal Voting Rights Act later that year. We relied on the power of that legislation and the commitment of both Kennedy and then Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach in supporting access to the ballot box for the black people of Perry County.
It would be a great step backwards for our democracy to have Jeff Sessions serving in the job Kennedy and Katzenbach held.
After the passage of the Voting Rights Act, I was proud to see that black voting registration in our region grew by tens of thousands and I was proud of my late husband’s well-earned nickname, “Mr. Voter Registration.” I also was proud to work alongside him to continue to build and grow our community’s political voice. But as black political power grew, so did resistance.
In 1985, U.S. Attorney Jeff Sessions indicted me, my husband, and another civil rights worker, Spencer Hogue, on false charges of election fraud for assisting elderly black citizens with absentee voting ballots. Until the day I die, I will believe that our arrests were because of our successful political activism and were designed to intimidate black voters and dampen black voting enthusiasm. Meanwhile, Sessions declined to investigate claims of unlawful white voting.
Despite none of us having any history of criminal activity, Sessions wanted to give us the maximum sentences, adding up to two centuries in prison. My husband was willing to plead guilty for crimes he didn’t commit if it would keep me from going to jail. But I knew we were innocent and refused the offer. Thankfully, the case against us, the “Marion 3,” was weak. The vast majority of charges were dismissed outright for lack of evidence, and a racially-mixed jury only took four hours of deliberation before acquitting us.
Yet the trial took a toll. We had to sell our family’s farm. I lost my job. The episode also took a toll on the voters of Perry County. The tactics of using the levers of power to intimidate and sow fear worked all too well. Black turnout dropped. People were afraid to exercise their constitutional right to vote for fear of retaliation backed by the power of the government. This was what Jeff Sessions did as a U.S. Attorney. I can only imagine what might happen to black voters when he has the power of the entire Department of Justice at his disposal.
The question of whether Jeff Sessions should be our nation’s next attorney general should not rise or fall just with what happened more than 30 years ago. While my impression of Sessions was formed in 1985, the years since then have only confirmed my views. Sessions has demonstrated a pattern of ignorance and insensitivity when it comes to race and a voting record of outright hostility to policies supported by the civil rights community.
During his rise in Alabama state politics, Sessions opposed several efforts to increase the racial diversity of federal judges in Alabama. In 1995, Sessions supported the idea of re-starting chain gangs in Alabama, even promising to defend any legal challenges against the practice. Any state, especially one with Alabama’s painful racial history, should not have their elected officials support measures that would put black men back in actual chains.
Here, she was reading from this.....10 pages worth
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3456732/scottkingletter2.pdf
and here is the rule they were referring to....
Under Rule 19, senators are not allowed to “directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator”.
You have ten pages to work with
Show me a specific statement that you object to
This wasn't about me.....it's about why Warren was blocked......it broke Senate rules.
I'm still looking for a single statement that breaks the rule
What are you offended by?
Here's her full speech......or as much was allowed.
She was initially warned by Senator Steve Daines, the Presiding Officer from Montana, about breaking the rule somewhere around 23:20(?) about her previous quotes from Kennedy's letter of a setting Senator being a disgrace.
Then at 49:18(?) Mitch McConnell stated she again broke the ruling by quoting Kings comments in her letter saying 'Senator Sessions has used the awesome power of his office to chill the free exercise of the vote by black citizens'. McConnell's charge was that she was impuning the motives and conduct of a colleague of which she had been previously warned against.
That is a broad overreach
Both documents are a matter of public record from distinguished citizens and are directly related to Sessions fitness for the office he seeks
Do Republicans really think sessions record is off limits just because he is a Senator?
You have ten pages to work with
Show me a specific statement that you object to
This wasn't about me.....it's about why Warren was blocked......it broke Senate rules.
I'm still looking for a single statement that breaks the rule
What are you offended by?
Here's her full speech......or as much was allowed.
She was initially warned by Senator Steve Daines, the Presiding Officer from Montana, about breaking the rule somewhere around 23:20(?) about her previous quotes from Kennedy's letter of a setting Senator being a disgrace.
Then at 49:18(?) Mitch McConnell stated she again broke the ruling by quoting Kings comments in her letter saying 'Senator Sessions has used the awesome power of his office to chill the free exercise of the vote by black citizens'. McConnell's charge was that she was impuning the motives and conduct of a colleague of which she had been previously warned against.
That is a broad overreach
Both documents are a matter of public record from distinguished citizens and are directly related to Sessions fitness for the office he seeks
Do Republicans really think sessions record is off limits just because he is a Senator?
That isn't his record.
It is an opinion of one person that is unsubstantiated. I think we should stop using articles derived from a biased source as evidence and stick to the facts.
