ShareThis Page
Sessions defends civil rights record, vows to uphold laws |

Sessions defends civil rights record, vows to uphold laws

| Tuesday, January 10, 2017 10:39 p.m.
Attorney General-designate Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 10, 2017, at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

WASHINGTON — Sen. Jeff Sessions forcefully defended his civil rights record Tuesday and pledged, if confirmed as the nation’s next attorney general, to put aside his personal views and uphold laws protecting abortion and same-sex marriage.

Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee as President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Justice Department, Sessions also vowed to recuse himself from decisions involving former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified material.

The daylong confirmation hearing was a mostly collegial affair with fellow senators politely prodding the 70-year-old former federal prosecutor to explain his record on issues ranging from torture to immigration.

As a longtime member of the committee now reviewing his expected nomination to become the nation’s top law enforcement officer, Sessions has sat on the opposite side of the witness table for five previous confirmation hearings for attorney general candidates.

So it’s no surprise that the seasoned Alabama lawmaker avoided any self-inflicted wounds during his testimony, keeping his composure amid questioning and periodic disruptions from protesters in the audience.

When pressed on his opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage, for example, the conservative senator told Democratic colleagues that both issues had been settled by the Supreme Court and that he would abide by those decisions. Similarly, on the use of waterboarding against terrorism suspects, which Sessions has previously supported, he said Congress had clearly outlawed the practice.

Sessions began his testimony by offering his most strident defense yet of allegations that as a U.S. attorney in the 1980s, he had improperly targeted civil rights advocates for prosecution on voter fraud charges and had made racially insensitive comments about the Ku Klux Klan and minorities.

“These are damnably false charges,” Sessions said, adding that he “did not harbor the race-based animosities I am accused of. I did not.”

Those accusations, made by fellow Justice Department attorneys at the time, helped torpedo Sessions’ 1986 nomination by President Reagan to become a federal judge.

“There was an organized effort to caricature me as something that wasn’t true,” he said. “It was very painful. I didn’t know how to respond and didn’t respond very well. I hope my tenure in this body has shown you that the caricature that was created of me was not accurate. It wasn’t accurate then, and it’s not accurate now.”

Sessions is again being assailed by civil rights groups, who point to his Senate record of voting against hate-crime legislation, immigration reform and efforts to ban torture as evidence that he would not fairly enforce the laws protecting minorities.

Sessions testified he hoped to work closely with local police and would aggressively combat gun violence, gang crimes and drug trafficking. He said he felt criticism of police misconduct should be “narrowly focused on the right basis” because too often mistakes are used “to smear whole departments” and that “places those officers at greater risk.”

The senator did not stray from his previous long-held hard-line views on immigration enforcement, testifying he would aggressively “prosecute those who repeatedly violate our borders” and support rescinding an Obama administration program that deferred deportation of hundreds of thousands of so-called Dreamers, those brought to the country illegally as children.

On counter-terrorism, Sessions said he would fight the “scourge of radical Islam” and believed that the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, should continue to house terror suspects. President Obama was unable to fulfill his pledge to close the detention facility, which still holds 55 detainees, 19 of whom have been cleared for release.

Sessions added that he does not support “the idea that Muslims as a religious group should be denied admissions to the United States,” a position Trump once backed.

The hearing was scheduled to continue Wednesday with a long list of witnesses, including Democratic Sen. Cory Booker, who said he will take the unprecedented step of opposing a fellow senator’s candidacy for a Cabinet job.

Sessions was the first of Trump’s Cabinet contenders to begin what is expected to be a combative confirmation process over the next few weeks.

Sessions, one of the most conservative members of Congress, is widely expected to win confirmation from his colleagues in the Republican-controlled Senate. No sitting U.S. senator has ever been rejected for a Cabinet position, and GOP senators on the committee offered nothing but unstinting support Tuesday.

Even so, Sessions has a long and complicated history on racial matters, and the toughest questions posed by senators focused on how he would deal with civil rights laws, hate crimes and access to the polls.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the committee, set a tough tone by saying that since the election, many citizens have expressed “deep anxiety about the direction of this country and whether this nominee will enforce the law fairly, evenly and without personal bias.”

“Today we are not being asked to evaluate him as a senator,” the California senator said, acknowledging that many of her Democratic colleagues like Sessions personally and professionally. “Will he be independent of the White House? Will he tell the president ‘no’ when necessary?”

Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., grew testy when questioning Sessions about several civil-rights lawsuits Sessions had listed on his Senate questionnaire as examples of “significant” cases that Sessions personally litigated during his career.

The Trump transition team later said the cases were worthy of being mentioned, even though Sessions had not been actively involved in them.

Franken suggested that the Trump campaign or Sessions was trying to inflate his civil rights accomplishments.

Sessions replied that he had listed the cases because they were “historic,” that they “were the kind of cases that were national in scope, and deserved be listed on the form.”

The would-be attorney general waded into many of the controversial issues that have long dogged the Justice Department, including whether it should reopen its investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server while serving as secretary of State. The FBI and Justice Department decided that criminal charges were not warranted despite having determined that Clinton and her aides unintentionally sent classified information over the system.

During the campaign, Trump said he would appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the matter, but he has since backed off that pledge.

Sessions, the first senator to endorse Trump’s presidential bid, said he would recuse himself from any Clinton-related matters because he had often attacked her on the campaign trail.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., asked whether Sessions believed Russia was behind the hacks of the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. Emails hacked from the DNC and Podesta’s email account disrupted the Clinton campaign, and the intelligence community and the FBI have concluded that the cyberattacks were ordered by high-ranking Russian officials with the goal of hurting Clinton and helping Trump.

Sessions said he had not been briefed on the investigation but has “no reason to doubt” the findings. As attorney general, Sessions would play a large role in helping decide how to respond to such an attack during Trump’s tenure.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.