Fox's Hemmer sugarcoats reasons for opposition to Sessions' judicial nomination
SUMMARY: While interviewing Sen. Jeff Sessions, Bill Hemmer minimized the reasons for the Senate's rejection of Sessions' 1986 federal district court nomination, saying that it resulted from "some criticism about some of your views regarding the NAACP."
During the June 5 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, while interviewing Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), co-host Bill Hemmer sugarcoated the reasons for the Senate's rejection of Sessions' 1986 nomination to be a U.S. district court judge. Hemmer said, "Twenty-three years ago, you were nominated by President Reagan to be a federal judge. That was rejected. It had some views or some criticism about some of your views regarding the NAACP." In fact, in addition to describing the NAACP and American Civil Liberties Union as "un-American," according to reporting at the time and subsequent reports, the Senate heard testimony that Sessions made numerous other racially insensitive comments. Further, the Senate also reportedly heard testimony about accusations that his 1985 pursuit of voter fraud charges against three African-American civil rights activists during his tenure as United States attorney were racially motivated, as Media Matters for America documented.
The New York Times reported in a June 6, 1986, article (accessed via Nexis) headlined, "Senate Panel Hands Reagan First Defeat on Nominee for Judgeship," that "[t]he nomination was opposed because of a number of racially insensitive statements Mr. Sessions was accused of making while serving as United States Attorney in Mobile, Ala. The nominee denied making racial statements, but both Democratic and Republican senators had expressed concern over his attitude toward members of minority groups and his prosecution last year of three blacks who were eventually acquitted on charges of voting fraud."
In a December 2002 New Republic article, then-assistant editor Sarah Wildman reported that a black former assistant U.S. attorney testified to the Senate that Sessions was "heard by several colleagues commenting that he 'used to think they [the Klan] were OK' until he found out some of them were 'pot smokers,' " among other remarks. Wildman reported that Sessions said the comment about the Ku Klux Klan "was clearly said in jest." From her article:
Senate Democrats tracked down a career Justice Department employee named J. Gerald Hebert, who testified, albeit reluctantly, that in a conversation between the two men Sessions had labeled the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) "un-American" and "Communist-inspired." Hebert said Sessions had claimed these groups "forced civil rights down the throats of people." In his confirmation hearings, Sessions sealed his own fate by saying such groups could be construed as "un-American" when "they involve themselves in promoting un-American positions" in foreign policy. Hebert testified that the young lawyer tended to "pop off" on such topics regularly, noting that Sessions had called a white civil rights lawyer a "disgrace to his race" for litigating voting rights cases. Sessions acknowledged making many of the statements attributed to him but claimed that most of the time he had been joking, saying he was sometimes "loose with [his] tongue." He further admitted to calling the Voting Rights Act of 1965 a "piece of intrusive legislation," a phrase he stood behind even in his confirmation hearings.
It got worse. Another damaging witness -- a black former assistant U.S. Attorney in Alabama named Thomas Figures -- testified that, during a 1981 murder investigation involving the Ku Klux Klan, Sessions was heard by several colleagues commenting that he "used to think they [the Klan] were OK" until he found out some of them were "pot smokers." Sessions claimed the comment was clearly said in jest. Figures didn't see it that way. Sessions, he said, had called him "boy" and, after overhearing him chastise a secretary, warned him to "be careful what you say to white folks." Figures echoed Hebert's claims, saying he too had heard Sessions call various civil rights organizations, including the National Council of Churches and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, "un-American." Sessions denied the accusations but again admitted to frequently joking in an off-color sort of way. In his defense, he said he was not a racist, pointing out that his children went to integrated schools and that he had shared a hotel room with a black attorney several times.
Talking Points Memo's Brian Beutler and Eric Kleefeld reported in a May 7 post that they obtained transcript of the Sessions confirmation hearing and further wrote of Figures' testimony:
Figures recalled one occasion in which the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division sent them instructions to investigate a case that Sessions had tried to close: "We had a very spirited discussion regarding how the Hodge case should then be handled; in the course of that argument, Mr. Sessions threw the file on a table, and remarked, 'I wish I could decline on all of them.' "
All of them, according to Figures, meant civil rights cases generally. As he explained at one point: "[T]he statement, the manner in which it was delivered, the impression on his face, the manner in which his face blushed, I believe it represented a hostility to investigating and pursuing those types of matters."
Figures said that Sessions had called him "boy" on a number of occasions, and had cautioned him to be careful what he said to "white folks." Mr. Sessions admonished me to 'be careful what you say to white folks,' " Figures testified. "Had Mr. Sessions merely urged me to be careful what I said to 'folks,' that admonition would have been quite reasonable. But that was not the language that he used."
From the June 5 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:
HEMMER: I need a quick answer on the next one here -- I'm running out of time -- but many may not be aware of this, and your position is very unique. Twenty-three years ago, you were nominated by President Reagan to be a federal judge. That was rejected. It had some views or some criticism about some of your views regarding the NAACP.
How has that experience from two decades ago shaped your experience for this hearing coming up this summer?
SESSIONS: Well, it made me feel -- first, that I felt it was -- I was unfairly treated and didn't get the chance to really fully answer questions, and the American people didn't get to hear my side of it. This nominee needs to be treated fairly. She needs to be able to answer any criticism that they have, and we're going to give her that. I hope people will say this is the best nomination process we've had. That would be my goal, and I look forward to working with Senator [Pat] Leahy [D-VT], and maybe we can achieve that.
HEMMER: OK. Jeff Sessions, thank you.
The Republicans are already a pretty emotional bunch.
Although I do agree that you don't need a five minute preface, you do need to get the facts straight when reporting the news or doing interviews.
"[S]ome of your views regarding the NAACP" is incredibly vague. What views? Was it about specific actions of that organization, while he himself supported civil rights? Hemmer acknowledges that many people in his audience don't know the story behind it, and yet he makes no effort to give them an accurate picture. It's sloppy, at best.
In any event, that still leaves the concept of being clear on the table. Why is that too much to expect? You already accepted the ACLU phrasing, and the wording I provided would only add on a few more seconds, which falls quite short of "voluminous detail".
You don't. Let me give you a most likely MMfA headline: Hemmer fails to disclose Senate Judiciary member Sessions' past racially charged comments.
All that's been said is that he should use the phrasing about the ACLU and point out that there were accusations of racism. How is that "a full blown citing of all the details"? If he's going to bring it up, he should be clear instead of vague. That really doesn't seem unfair to say.
And again, if that's not fair or relevant at all, then Hemmer shouldn't have brought it up at all. If MMfA would hypothetically think differently in that situation, then you would hypothetically have no problems making that argument there. Right?
I don't have to demonstrate the relevance. If Hemmer is going to bring it up, then it should be clear. You have yet to show any reason why that is not fair.
I didn't say anything about Sessions crying victim. You're the one who is so concerned with his lack of time. There's no specific comment to deny, so he could say exactly what he said anyway. So what's the problem?
Who said "two seconds to respond?" I said he would have two less seconds, tops. That means the amount of time he actually had minus two seconds. I thought that the last time you wrote that, you just mistyped it.
Is this clear to you now, or will you demonstrate an "urge to argue"?
And you stand on that as being fair to Sessions and your argument for that as being non-partisan?
Ah, ok, got it.
Why do you think that's not fair? Please be specific.
Argue with yourself, maybe you can convince yourself.
I don't care if he asked the question or not. Since he did, he should be clear with the background of it. If he doesn't ask the question, I don't know that there's a need for the disclosure. If you can't dispute that, what more do you have to say?
Are you capable of honest discussion at all? I have yet to see it.
And his answer is "Exactly". Yet he continues to argue. You're a better man than me Brab, I'd have shot myself after the second or third nonsensical response from Right-Off.
Seriously, though, I'm quite experienced in dealing with people who make emotion-based arguments and lack the maturity to back off from them. It's almost as if Tommy never left, isn't it?
As for the opinion of Sessions and his supporters, I'm not sure what you think you're arguing. If someone accused him of making racist comments, then there were charges of racist comments. There's nothing to dispute about that with any amount of honesty.
I sounds to me that you are saying any comment deemed racist would require a conclusion and couldn't be determined as fact. Is this what you are saying?
Please say it is not.
Best.