Franken Trashes Sessions, Then Ted Cruz Shows Up and Destroys Him
During Sen. Jeff Sessions’ confirmation hearing Tuesday for attorney general, fellow Sen. Al Franken pummeled him with a litany of accusations, essentially accusing him of having never actually prosecuted dozens of desegregation cases.
“Now, you originally said that you personally handled three of these cases, but these lawyers say that you had no substantive involvement,” Franken said, reportedly referencing a column in The Wall Street Journal by an attorney.
This line of questioning was not appreciated by Sen. Ted Cruz, who later slammed Franken for having even insinuated that Sessions had lied.
Advertisement - story continues below
“It is unfortunate to see members of this body impugn the integrity of a fellow senator with whom we have served for years,” he said. “It is particularly unfortunate when that attempt is not backed up by fact.”
He went on to attack the veracity of Franken’s claim, noting that the aforementioned column had been penned by an attorney who later admitted to misstatements of fact during a testimony before a Senate committee.
Specifically, the column had been written by former Department of Justice attorney Gerry Hebert, who according to fellow former DOJ attorney J. Christian Adams was indeed a liar.
Advertisement - story continues below
“The reporters using Hebert as a source do not mention Hebert’s history of making up stories about purported racism, yet documentation of that history is easily located in the public record,” Adams wrote in a piece for PJ Media last year in defense of Sessions.
“The fact that this is controversial tells you all you need to know about the sorry intellectual state of our country’s elites, especially in the legal academy and federal bureaucracies,” Cruz continued Tuesday. “Sen. Sessions believes in the foundational idea that we are governed by objectively knowable, written rules, and that we should not be subject to the interpretive whims of unelected, power-hungry bureaucrats. Sessions will instill this belief at the Department of Justice.”
Listen to his retort below:
Franken later responded by claiming that he just had been trying to do his job by being tough on Sessions. That would be believable were it not already known that Franken is and has always been a hack. http://conservativetribune.com/franken-trashes-sessions/
“Now, you originally said that you personally handled three of these cases, but these lawyers say that you had no substantive involvement,” Franken said, reportedly referencing a column in The Wall Street Journal by an attorney.
This line of questioning was not appreciated by Sen. Ted Cruz, who later slammed Franken for having even insinuated that Sessions had lied.
Advertisement - story continues below
“It is unfortunate to see members of this body impugn the integrity of a fellow senator with whom we have served for years,” he said. “It is particularly unfortunate when that attempt is not backed up by fact.”
He went on to attack the veracity of Franken’s claim, noting that the aforementioned column had been penned by an attorney who later admitted to misstatements of fact during a testimony before a Senate committee.
Specifically, the column had been written by former Department of Justice attorney Gerry Hebert, who according to fellow former DOJ attorney J. Christian Adams was indeed a liar.
Advertisement - story continues below
“The reporters using Hebert as a source do not mention Hebert’s history of making up stories about purported racism, yet documentation of that history is easily located in the public record,” Adams wrote in a piece for PJ Media last year in defense of Sessions.
“The fact that this is controversial tells you all you need to know about the sorry intellectual state of our country’s elites, especially in the legal academy and federal bureaucracies,” Cruz continued Tuesday. “Sen. Sessions believes in the foundational idea that we are governed by objectively knowable, written rules, and that we should not be subject to the interpretive whims of unelected, power-hungry bureaucrats. Sessions will instill this belief at the Department of Justice.”
Listen to his retort below:
Franken later responded by claiming that he just had been trying to do his job by being tough on Sessions. That would be believable were it not already known that Franken is and has always been a hack. http://conservativetribune.com/franken-trashes-sessions/
So debunked that it made it into the Wall Street Journal.
"the aforementioned column had been penned by an attorney who later admitted to misstatements of fact during a testimony before a Senate committee.
Specifically, the column had been written by former Department of Justice attorney Gerry Hebert, who according to fellow former DOJ attorney J. Christian Adams was indeed a liar.
Advertisement - story continues below
“The reporters using Hebert as a source do not mention Hebert’s history of making up stories about purported racism, yet documentation of that history is easily located in the public record,” Adams wrote in a piece for PJ Media last year in defense of Sessions."
Yes. And you have no response.
I have been reading the WSJ for many, many years, and I have spent time in Washington in Congressional hearings, and have testified as well. The WSJ isn't sacred as far as truth is concerned, and it has its agenda, too.
Not much has changed.
Franken is a crank. He should go back to Comedy-SNL needs some mediocre comedians.......
Franken's resume could be summed up as a professional fool. Yet democrats thought he was perfectly qualified to be a US Senator who votes on nominees to the highest positions in the country.
Isn't he from the same state as (Governor!) Jesse Ventura? That should answer all kinds of questions......
Al Frankenstein wrote two of the funniest, smartest, and politically accurate books I've ever read. Any dult here that thinks they know Franken well enough to judge him should read Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, and The Truth.
Democrats lay the foundation for merging show business and politics by electing an actual comedian like Franken and then bemoan republicans merging politics and show business with a buffoon like Trump. Go figure.
Lol. Reagan? Hello?
My point is that democrats elected a professional comedian.
Comedian and show business are hardly synonymous. My point is that just because someone has a sense of humor, it doesn't make them politically incapable. Being funny often is an asset to any career. You make it sound like a given detriment.
My point is that just because someone has a sense of humor, it doesn't make them politically incapable. Being funny often is an asset to any career. You make it sound like a given detriment.
And my point is that his resume should consist of more than a sense of humor. If Trump is thin on qualifications (and he is), then Franken's qualifications are literally a joke.
Based on the books I mentioned, I'd say he's got exactly the right experience to have been voted into office.
If the bar is so low that all you need is a sense of humor, then Trump met that so his qualifications shouldn't have been an issue.
Franken's books are of a very serious nature, but punctuated with world class humor, so you're quite wrong on that account. As far as Trump's sense of humor goes - are we even talking about the same Trump? The only intentionally funny thing Trump ever said was his joke about Melania at the Al Smith charity dinner. It was written for him, and he read it right off a cue card without even glancing up, and threw his wife under the bus in the process. Wow, funny guy.
Franken's books are of a very serious nature, but punctuated with world class humor, so you're quite wrong on that account. As far as Trump's sense of humor goes - are we even talking about the same Trump.
He has a sense of humor, even if you (subjectively) don't like it, so he's as (objectively) qualified as Franken (based on your view that a sense of humor is all one needs).
"based on your view that a sense of humor is all one needs"
It must be hard going through life only being able to interpret writing the way you want to interpret it, instead of the way it is clearly intended. If you could get over that hurdle, one day dialogue with you might actually be meaningful.
It must be hard going through life only being able to interpret writing the way you want to interpret it, instead of the way it is clearly intended. If you could get over that hurdle, one day dialogue with you might actually be meaningful.
Read that back over and over . . . while standing in front of a mirror.
I don't think there has even been a time where I have misunderstood your hate messages. As always, you may have the last word.
I don't think there has even been a time where I have misunderstood your hate messages.
And I don't think there has ever been a time that you have been able to understand a disagreement as anything other than hatred. That's your problem, not mine.
It is - thank you for correcting me.
Franken used to be a part of "Air America", a liberal/progressive radio network. It folded and he ran for congress and won. I supported him until he voted against 'Net Neutrality' to appease his corporate sponsors. Of course, I no longer support him (Sanders & Warren also) and the democratic party.
You are painting yourself into a corner that's reserved for people who don't even want to be part of the political process ever.
It looks to me like she got out of the corner.
Air America. A great manufactured talk radio failure.
"You are painting yourself into a corner that's reserved for people who don't even want to be part of the political process ever."
Naw. I run to the beat of my own drum. I'm just not part of the for-profit, party before country, unimind of the republicrat ideology; I'm against it. I voted for Jill Stein and support the Green party.
It sounds like all she has to do is make one wrong move and you will be out of politicians to support. I'm surprised that the Jill Stein effort to put Hillary in the White House wasn't it.
Appearances can be deceiving.
Just a curious question-- How can you lie before a congressional hearing, get caught in the lie, and not face perjury charges? =To me, that would be way more serious than lying in court...
Doesn't appear to be a limit. Clapper lied about the NSA spying and nothing ever happened.
That doesn't seem right, to me...