Elizabeth Warren Barred From Reading Coretta Scott King Letter About Jeff Sessions On Senate Floor

[Hutch Starskey]

That has nothing at all to do with the debate over his fitness for the position. He was unfit then and is certainly then unfit now.

fitness? wtf does that mean? fitness. you got nothing about his policies. debating isn't calling someone racist. just in case you never have done that before.

What's the subject of the letters we're discussing in this thread, dope.

yeah, what is the subject?

And oh BTW, the niece of MLK told her to shut the fk up!!!!

Why in the hell are you posting here if you don't know WTF the thread is about?

I was going to ask you the same thing.

Why in the hell are you posting here if you don't know WTF the thread is about?

Dope

 

[jc456]

fitness? wtf does that mean? fitness. you got nothing about his policies. debating isn't calling someone racist. just in case you never have done that before.

What's the subject of the letters we're discussing in this thread, dope.

yeah, what is the subject?

And oh BTW, the niece of MLK told her to shut the fk up!!!!

Why in the hell are you posting here if you don't know WTF the thread is about?

I was going to ask you the same thing.

Why in the hell are you posting here if you don't know WTF the thread is about?

Dope

no thanks, I'll stick to beer.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

The other Senators read 'excerpts' from Kings letter.....Warren read it verbatim. She was first warned of breaking the rule when she read Kennedy's letter that included Sessions was a disgrace.

Her rant was over 50 minutes long.

 

[Snouter]

Is there a letter from Coretta discussing her thoughts on Martin ******* white prostitutes while he was married to her?

 

[Lakhota]

Is there a letter from Coretta discussing her thoughts on Martin ******* white prostitutes while he was married to her?

Do you have "credible" proof that such a letter exists? If so - please share it. Is ******* "white prostitutes" racist?

Oh, and what would that have to do with Sessions being a racist?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

They should have let Lizzy Finish.

That way we'd have tape of her playing the race card as a senator.

Which would work well against her should someone get her to smoke pot and think she'd have a snowball's chance in hell of becoming president.

 

[FA_Q2]

I find it rather interesting that the left is so outrages here when the right invokes an existing rule to stop stonewalling an appointment that was guaranteed to go through. The outcome was known and the only reason that they were doing this was to grandstand and stall the process. The dems, on the other hand, were caught in the same situation with the republicans stonewalling and their solution was not to enact an old rule but make up new ones.

 

[paperview]

The U.S. Senate has tried to silence Coretta Scott King for 30 years:

<snip>

"As my colleague Christina Cauterucci noted last month, King’s letter didn’t make it into the congressional record three decades ago, and it wouldn’t have been released this year if Sen. Chuck Grassley had his way.


The chair of the Judiciary Committee is the only person with the legal power to release King’s written testimony into public record. In 1986, the chairman was noted racist Strom Thurmond, who unsurprisingly declined to make King’s letter public. The current chairman, Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, could also have released King’s letter, but, as he believes Sessions is “very honorable” and a “man of integrity,” had little incentive to do so.


The entire document was made public for the first time by the Washington Post on Jan. 10, after an unidentified person leaked it to the newspaper. As BuzzFeed noted, before this year just one line from the letter had been made public, thanks to a dispatch written in 1986 by a Knight Ridder reporter. “For a century, the racial practices that characterized our region were established and enforced by men who, like Mr. Sessions, protested that they, too, were not personally hostile to blacks,” King wrote.

Thanks to the Post, we now know the full sweep of King’s remark. She warned that 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 sheriffs accomplished 20 years ago with clubs and cattle prods.” We can now add that the other irony of the Sessions nomination is that a woman was silenced for attempting to read a 10-page document that had somehow been kept out of the public record for 30 years."

So now you're admitting it is in the congressional record, it was just not made public?

What part of "King’s letter didn’t make it into the congressional record three decades ago" are you having trouble with.


When it's part of the Congressional Record -- derp --

it's made public.

 

[basquebromance]

"when Sessions was confirmed it turned my stomach" - Goofy Warren

 

[OKTexas]

The U.S. Senate has tried to silence Coretta Scott King for 30 years:

<snip>

"As my colleague Christina Cauterucci noted last month, King’s letter didn’t make it into the congressional record three decades ago, and it wouldn’t have been released this year if Sen. Chuck Grassley had his way.


The chair of the Judiciary Committee is the only person with the legal power to release King’s written testimony into public record. In 1986, the chairman was noted racist Strom Thurmond, who unsurprisingly declined to make King’s letter public. The current chairman, Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, could also have released King’s letter, but, as he believes Sessions is “very honorable” and a “man of integrity,” had little incentive to do so.


The entire document was made public for the first time by the Washington Post on Jan. 10, after an unidentified person leaked it to the newspaper. As BuzzFeed noted, before this year just one line from the letter had been made public, thanks to a dispatch written in 1986 by a Knight Ridder reporter. “For a century, the racial practices that characterized our region were established and enforced by men who, like Mr. Sessions, protested that they, too, were not personally hostile to blacks,” King wrote.

Thanks to the Post, we now know the full sweep of King’s remark. She warned that 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 sheriffs accomplished 20 years ago with clubs and cattle prods.” We can now add that the other irony of the Sessions nomination is that a woman was silenced for attempting to read a 10-page document that had somehow been kept out of the public record for 30 years."

So now you're admitting it is in the congressional record, it was just not made public?

What part of "King’s letter didn’t make it into the congressional record three decades ago" are you having trouble with.


When it's part of the Congressional Record -- derp --

it's made public.

Are you seriously saying that all the business congress does, that isn't made public, didn't happen or some how wasn't recorded? You really are a damned fool.

 

[paperview]

The U.S. Senate has tried to silence Coretta Scott King for 30 years:

<snip>

"As my colleague Christina Cauterucci noted last month, King’s letter didn’t make it into the congressional record three decades ago, and it wouldn’t have been released this year if Sen. Chuck Grassley had his way.


The chair of the Judiciary Committee is the only person with the legal power to release King’s written testimony into public record. In 1986, the chairman was noted racist Strom Thurmond, who unsurprisingly declined to make King’s letter public. The current chairman, Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, could also have released King’s letter, but, as he believes Sessions is “very honorable” and a “man of integrity,” had little incentive to do so.


The entire document was made public for the first time by the Washington Post on Jan. 10, after an unidentified person leaked it to the newspaper. As BuzzFeed noted, before this year just one line from the letter had been made public, thanks to a dispatch written in 1986 by a Knight Ridder reporter. “For a century, the racial practices that characterized our region were established and enforced by men who, like Mr. Sessions, protested that they, too, were not personally hostile to blacks,” King wrote.

Thanks to the Post, we now know the full sweep of King’s remark. She warned that 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 sheriffs accomplished 20 years ago with clubs and cattle prods.” We can now add that the other irony of the Sessions nomination is that a woman was silenced for attempting to read a 10-page document that had somehow been kept out of the public record for 30 years."

So now you're admitting it is in the congressional record, it was just not made public?

What part of "King’s letter didn’t make it into the congressional record three decades ago" are you having trouble with.


When it's part of the Congressional Record -- derp --

it's made public.

Are you seriously saying that all the business congress does, that isn't made public, didn't happen or some how wasn't recorded? You really are a damned fool.

Apparently you are such a dumb **** redneck, you don't understand what the phrase "not entered into the congressional record" means.

The racists asshole Strom Thurmond DID NOT enter into it into the official congressional record. Only a sentence was made public. If you'd read, you'd know that.

 

[OKTexas]

The U.S. Senate has tried to silence Coretta Scott King for 30 years:

<snip>

"As my colleague Christina Cauterucci noted last month, King’s letter didn’t make it into the congressional record three decades ago, and it wouldn’t have been released this year if Sen. Chuck Grassley had his way.


The chair of the Judiciary Committee is the only person with the legal power to release King’s written testimony into public record. In 1986, the chairman was noted racist Strom Thurmond, who unsurprisingly declined to make King’s letter public. The current chairman, Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, could also have released King’s letter, but, as he believes Sessions is “very honorable” and a “man of integrity,” had little incentive to do so.


The entire document was made public for the first time by the Washington Post on Jan. 10, after an unidentified person leaked it to the newspaper. As BuzzFeed noted, before this year just one line from the letter had been made public, thanks to a dispatch written in 1986 by a Knight Ridder reporter. “For a century, the racial practices that characterized our region were established and enforced by men who, like Mr. Sessions, protested that they, too, were not personally hostile to blacks,” King wrote.

Thanks to the Post, we now know the full sweep of King’s remark. She warned that 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 sheriffs accomplished 20 years ago with clubs and cattle prods.” We can now add that the other irony of the Sessions nomination is that a woman was silenced for attempting to read a 10-page document that had somehow been kept out of the public record for 30 years."

So now you're admitting it is in the congressional record, it was just not made public?

What part of "King’s letter didn’t make it into the congressional record three decades ago" are you having trouble with.


When it's part of the Congressional Record -- derp --

it's made public.

Are you seriously saying that all the business congress does, that isn't made public, didn't happen or some how wasn't recorded? You really are a damned fool.

Apparently you are such a dumb **** redneck, you don't understand what the phrase "not entered into the congressional record" means.

The racists asshole Strom Thurmond DID NOT enter into it into the official congressional record. Only a sentence was made public. If you'd read, you'd know that.

So you're saying he threw everything in the trash except one sentence?

 

[paperview]

The U.S. Senate has tried to silence Coretta Scott King for 30 years:

<snip>

"As my colleague Christina Cauterucci noted last month, King’s letter didn’t make it into the congressional record three decades ago, and it wouldn’t have been released this year if Sen. Chuck Grassley had his way.


The chair of the Judiciary Committee is the only person with the legal power to release King’s written testimony into public record. In 1986, the chairman was noted racist Strom Thurmond, who unsurprisingly declined to make King’s letter public. The current chairman, Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, could also have released King’s letter, but, as he believes Sessions is “very honorable” and a “man of integrity,” had little incentive to do so.


The entire document was made public for the first time by the Washington Post on Jan. 10, after an unidentified person leaked it to the newspaper. As BuzzFeed noted, before this year just one line from the letter had been made public, thanks to a dispatch written in 1986 by a Knight Ridder reporter. “For a century, the racial practices that characterized our region were established and enforced by men who, like Mr. Sessions, protested that they, too, were not personally hostile to blacks,” King wrote.

Thanks to the Post, we now know the full sweep of King’s remark. She warned that 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 sheriffs accomplished 20 years ago with clubs and cattle prods.” We can now add that the other irony of the Sessions nomination is that a woman was silenced for attempting to read a 10-page document that had somehow been kept out of the public record for 30 years."

So now you're admitting it is in the congressional record, it was just not made public?

What part of "King’s letter didn’t make it into the congressional record three decades ago" are you having trouble with.


When it's part of the Congressional Record -- derp --

it's made public.

Are you seriously saying that all the business congress does, that isn't made public, didn't happen or some how wasn't recorded? You really are a damned fool.

Apparently you are such a dumb **** redneck, you don't understand what the phrase "not entered into the congressional record" means.

The racists asshole Strom Thurmond DID NOT enter into it into the official congressional record. Only a sentence was made public. If you'd read, you'd know that.

So you're saying he threw everything in the trash except one sentence?

Jesus Christ. Read the damn piece I posted.

Go find a child to read it to you if you can't manage.

 

[OKTexas]

So now you're admitting it is in the congressional record, it was just not made public?

What part of "King’s letter didn’t make it into the congressional record three decades ago" are you having trouble with.


When it's part of the Congressional Record -- derp --

it's made public.

Are you seriously saying that all the business congress does, that isn't made public, didn't happen or some how wasn't recorded? You really are a damned fool.

Apparently you are such a dumb **** redneck, you don't understand what the phrase "not entered into the congressional record" means.

The racists asshole Strom Thurmond DID NOT enter into it into the official congressional record. Only a sentence was made public. If you'd read, you'd know that.

So you're saying he threw everything in the trash except one sentence?

Jesus Christ. Read the damn piece I posted.

Go find a child to read it to you if you can't manage.

Why is it so hard for your to grasp the FACT that everything that occurres in hearings is recorded, just because it wasn't entered into the PUBLIC RECORD doesn't mean it's not in the record. Also the letter was made public in 86 just like it has been made public this time. So keep playing you semantics game, I'm done.

 

[paperview]

What part of "King’s letter didn’t make it into the congressional record three decades ago" are you having trouble with.


When it's part of the Congressional Record -- derp --

it's made public.

Are you seriously saying that all the business congress does, that isn't made public, didn't happen or some how wasn't recorded? You really are a damned fool.

Apparently you are such a dumb **** redneck, you don't understand what the phrase "not entered into the congressional record" means.

The racists asshole Strom Thurmond DID NOT enter into it into the official congressional record. Only a sentence was made public. If you'd read, you'd know that.

So you're saying he threw everything in the trash except one sentence?

Jesus Christ. Read the damn piece I posted.

Go find a child to read it to you if you can't manage.

Why is it so hard for your to grasp the FACT that everything that occurres in hearings is recorded, just because it wasn't entered into the PUBLIC RECORD doesn't mean it's not in the record. Also the letter was made public in 86 just like it has been made public this time. So keep playing you semantics game, I'm done.

No
it
wasn't.

Idiot.