Crying Wolf on Race: Top Sessions Critic Gerry Hebert Has History of Making it Up

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Apr 1, 2011
170,026
47,214
2,180
The claims that Session is a racist were based on a leftwing smear campaign. The evidence for it just keeps piling up. Smearing their opponents is how the Democrat party operates. These people are all douche bags.


Gerry Hebert, the leading critic of the appointment of Senator Jeff Sessions as attorney general, has a history of making things up about racial issues -- so much so, in fact, that a federal court imposed sanctions in one of Hebert's voting cases.

Reporters like Cameron Joseph at the New York Daily News (@cam_joseph) have already used quotes from Gerry Hebert, a former Justice Department lawyer, to portray Senator Sessions as a racist. Almost 30 years ago, Hebert and his allies in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department were responsible for sabotaging a judicial nomination for Sessions.
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. Hebert's exaggerations about racism in one federal court case resulted in sanctions being imposed by a federal judge, costing the United States taxpayer $86,626.

As I wrote in my book Injustice, Hebert is not to be trusted as a credible source:

In United States v. Jones, the Voting Section was sanctioned $86,626 for bringing a frivolous case in Alabama. The DOJ brought the suit under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to block over fifty white voters from participating in an election in a majority black district.
The appeals court ruled that the lawsuit was filed “without conducting a proper investigation of its truth [and was] unconscionable ... Hopefully, we will not again be faced with reviewing a case as carelessly instigated as this one."

You can read the entire scolding Hebert received from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals -- for bringing a flimsy case that relied on trumped-up exaggerations about racism -- here.

The court ruled:

A properly conducted investigation would have quickly revealed that there was no basis for the claim that the Defendants were guilty of purposeful discrimination against black voters ...
Unfortunately, we cannot restore the reputation of the persons wrongfully branded by the United States as public officials who deliberately deprived their fellow citizens of their voting rights. We also lack the power to remedy the damage done to race relations in Dallas County by the unfounded accusations of purposeful discrimination made by the United States.

We can only hope that in the future the decision makers in the United States Department of Justice will be more sensitive to the impact on racial harmony that can result from the filing of a claim of purposeful discrimination.

So ironically -- or of course -- the media rushed to press using Gerry Hebert as THE credible source on perhaps THE ONE TOPIC where Gerry Hebert kinda should be scratched off as a possible source.

. . . . .
 
On the bright side none of us give a damn anymore. The left has lied so many damn times no one is buying into their bullshit and caving at the mere thought of "someone saying someone told them someone said N*****" in 1932.

But lies are all they have it appears.
 
On the bright side none of us give a damn anymore. The left has lied so many damn times no one is buying into their bullshit and caving at the mere thought of "someone saying someone told them someone said N*****" in 1932.

But lies are all they have it appears.
They tried this line of attack with Trump with all the "accusers" and it failed miserably. The public is getting wise to sleazy Democrat tricks.
 
Life in Post Truth America

Why is it so hard for the right to accept reality? Sessions was and is a racist, lots of Americans are racists, does that really surprise you guys? His record speaks for itself. Why not just hope some glimmer of conscience and concern operates in this small minded man?

Banning the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. (Jan 2006)
Voted NO on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. (Feb 2013)
Voted YES on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 1998)
Voted YES on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997)
Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
Rated 20% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
Rated 0% by the HRC, indicating an anti-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
Rated 7% by the NAACP, indicating an anti-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)
State definition of marriage supersedes federal gay marriage. (Mar 2014)

Jeff Sessions on the Issues

'Is a psychological diagnosis a useful way to view racism—or does it merely absolve the racist of blame?'
Is Racism a Psychological Disorder?

Read about it here: Dog Whistle Politics
Clarity on Racial Politics

"Racism is not about how you look, it is about how people assign meaning to how you look." Robin D.G. Kelley
.
 
Life in Post Truth America

Why is it so hard for the right to accept reality? Sessions was and is a racist, lots of Americans are racists, does that really surprise you guys? His record speaks for itself. Why not just hope some glimmer of conscience and concern operates in this small minded man?

Banning the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. (Jan 2006)
Voted NO on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. (Feb 2013)
Voted YES on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 1998)
Voted YES on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997)
Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
Rated 20% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
Rated 0% by the HRC, indicating an anti-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
Rated 7% by the NAACP, indicating an anti-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)
State definition of marriage supersedes federal gay marriage. (Mar 2014)

Jeff Sessions on the Issues

'Is a psychological diagnosis a useful way to view racism—or does it merely absolve the racist of blame?'
Is Racism a Psychological Disorder?

Read about it here: Dog Whistle Politics
Clarity on Racial Politics

"Racism is not about how you look, it is about how people assign meaning to how you look." Robin D.G. Kelley
.

I agree with his actions on most of those, except for the flag desecration and cell phone wiretapping issues. The opinion of the NAACP, ACLU and HRC don't matter a bit to me. In fact, their low ratings are a recommendation for the man, as far as I am concerned.
 
The claims that Session is a racist were based on a leftwing smear campaign. The evidence for it just keeps piling up. Smearing their opponents is how the Democrat party operates. These people are all douche bags.


Gerry Hebert, the leading critic of the appointment of Senator Jeff Sessions as attorney general, has a history of making things up about racial issues -- so much so, in fact, that a federal court imposed sanctions in one of Hebert's voting cases.

Reporters like Cameron Joseph at the New York Daily News (@cam_joseph) have already used quotes from Gerry Hebert, a former Justice Department lawyer, to portray Senator Sessions as a racist. Almost 30 years ago, Hebert and his allies in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department were responsible for sabotaging a judicial nomination for Sessions.
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. Hebert's exaggerations about racism in one federal court case resulted in sanctions being imposed by a federal judge, costing the United States taxpayer $86,626.

As I wrote in my book Injustice, Hebert is not to be trusted as a credible source:

In United States v. Jones, the Voting Section was sanctioned $86,626 for bringing a frivolous case in Alabama. The DOJ brought the suit under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to block over fifty white voters from participating in an election in a majority black district.
The appeals court ruled that the lawsuit was filed “without conducting a proper investigation of its truth [and was] unconscionable ... Hopefully, we will not again be faced with reviewing a case as carelessly instigated as this one."

You can read the entire scolding Hebert received from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals -- for bringing a flimsy case that relied on trumped-up exaggerations about racism -- here.

The court ruled:

A properly conducted investigation would have quickly revealed that there was no basis for the claim that the Defendants were guilty of purposeful discrimination against black voters ...
Unfortunately, we cannot restore the reputation of the persons wrongfully branded by the United States as public officials who deliberately deprived their fellow citizens of their voting rights. We also lack the power to remedy the damage done to race relations in Dallas County by the unfounded accusations of purposeful discrimination made by the United States.

We can only hope that in the future the decision makers in the United States Department of Justice will be more sensitive to the impact on racial harmony that can result from the filing of a claim of purposeful discrimination.

So ironically -- or of course -- the media rushed to press using Gerry Hebert as THE credible source on perhaps THE ONE TOPIC where Gerry Hebert kinda should be scratched off as a possible source.

. . . . .

Did this guy also make up the part about Sessions being denied a federal judge position 30 years ago, because Sessions is an unabashed racist?

Nah, I don't this guy made that part up.
 
The claims that Session is a racist were based on a leftwing smear campaign. The evidence for it just keeps piling up. Smearing their opponents is how the Democrat party operates. These people are all douche bags.


Gerry Hebert, the leading critic of the appointment of Senator Jeff Sessions as attorney general, has a history of making things up about racial issues -- so much so, in fact, that a federal court imposed sanctions in one of Hebert's voting cases.

Reporters like Cameron Joseph at the New York Daily News (@cam_joseph) have already used quotes from Gerry Hebert, a former Justice Department lawyer, to portray Senator Sessions as a racist. Almost 30 years ago, Hebert and his allies in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department were responsible for sabotaging a judicial nomination for Sessions.
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. Hebert's exaggerations about racism in one federal court case resulted in sanctions being imposed by a federal judge, costing the United States taxpayer $86,626.

As I wrote in my book Injustice, Hebert is not to be trusted as a credible source:

In United States v. Jones, the Voting Section was sanctioned $86,626 for bringing a frivolous case in Alabama. The DOJ brought the suit under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to block over fifty white voters from participating in an election in a majority black district.
The appeals court ruled that the lawsuit was filed “without conducting a proper investigation of its truth [and was] unconscionable ... Hopefully, we will not again be faced with reviewing a case as carelessly instigated as this one."

You can read the entire scolding Hebert received from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals -- for bringing a flimsy case that relied on trumped-up exaggerations about racism -- here.

The court ruled:

A properly conducted investigation would have quickly revealed that there was no basis for the claim that the Defendants were guilty of purposeful discrimination against black voters ...
Unfortunately, we cannot restore the reputation of the persons wrongfully branded by the United States as public officials who deliberately deprived their fellow citizens of their voting rights. We also lack the power to remedy the damage done to race relations in Dallas County by the unfounded accusations of purposeful discrimination made by the United States.

We can only hope that in the future the decision makers in the United States Department of Justice will be more sensitive to the impact on racial harmony that can result from the filing of a claim of purposeful discrimination.

So ironically -- or of course -- the media rushed to press using Gerry Hebert as THE credible source on perhaps THE ONE TOPIC where Gerry Hebert kinda should be scratched off as a possible source.

. . . . .

Did this guy also make up the part about Sessions being denied a federal judge position 30 years ago, because Sessions is an unabashed racist?

Nah, I don't this guy made that part up.

This guy is one of the people who smeared him. The other guy who did it was indicted for bribery a couple years later.
 

Forum List

Back
Top