Jeff Sessions was finally confirmed by the Senate, after the Democrats made a spectacle of themselves again. I don’t agree with everything he says, but I’m sure he will be a great Attorney General, not least because he will actually enforce immigration law. Of course, the liberal cognoscenti, who as usual think they are oh so intelligent even when they are being manipulated, are relaying every accusation made against him. I have read countless articles, both favorable and hostile to Sessions, about him in the past few weeks and, having reviewed the evidence (I have even read part of the transcript of his 1986 hearing in the Senate), I can say with confidence that the campaign against him, both then and now, is a great example of the kind of racial demagoguery that Democrats love so much. The accusations against him, which most journalists relay without doing their job and verifying the information, are nothing but politically motivated slander. Breitbart has published what is, by far, the best piece I have read on that issue. (This is a good example of why, even though it publishes a lot of stupid shit, you should still read Breitbart if you want to be well-informed. I have no doubt that many who read this, who have been convinced that it’s a white nationalist website, will find this ridiculous, but I will address this nonsense soon in a post about Bannon.)As shameful as this situation is, there is really nothing unusual about it. Democrats accuse someone whose political views they don’t like of being a racist, the media complacently relays those accusations even though they are absolutely not supported by the evidence and scores of supposedly educated useful idiots buy it hook, line and sinker. (I particularly like how the media often calls Sessions by his full name, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, in a not particularly subtle attempt to evoke the picture of a slave-owning Southern gentleman in the mind of the reader.) It’s not surprising that the campaign against Sessions in 1986 was spearheaded by Ted Kennedy, ever the lying scumbag, together with Joe Biden, who himself is no stranger to that kind of political operation. You just need a modicum of critical thinking ability and the willingness to verify the information you’re being fed. Unfortunately, most people are severely lacking in both, which how you end up with demagogues such as Elizabeth Warren being hailed as heroes in the fight against fascism…
Take for instance this article in the Washington Post, which is almost entirely hostile to Sessions but contains this remarkable passage toward the end, about the Perry County voter fraud case that is often used against him:
This is a complicated case with a lot of history. We explored it in depth here, but there are many theories and analyses of this case that we have not covered. For example, some have theorized that [the district Attorney] wrote to Sessions after the 1982 case only to lay the ground for an extensive, federally backed investigation in 1984. Questions have been raised about the treatment of witnesses by both the FBI and the defendants — and how the treatment may have affected the outcome of the case.
When I read the article, this passage immediately raised a huge red flag, as it should have for anyone else. Indeed, it’s exactly the kind of things journalists write when they have ignored evidence that goes against the narrative they are trying to sell, which suggests that one should do some verification before one buys the narrative in question. I was particularly alerted by the allusion to the way in which the defense had treated the witnesses, because elsewhere in the article, the author explains that some of the witnesses had changed their testimony during the investigation, in a way that made it look bad for Sessions. But this allusion suggested to me that the defense might have intimidated them, which the author of the article could have conveniently left out of her account, as it would obviously not serve the purpose of the article, which is to depict Sessions as a racist.
To be clear, I hadn’t read anywhere that the defense had allegedly tried to intimidate witnesses into changing their testimony until I read the Washington Post article, since neither the piece on Breitbart nor any of the other recent articles I have read mentioned that. But when I read this passage in the Washington Post, I just knew it was code for exactly this, because I have learned to know when journalists are hiding something. And, lo and behold, after 5 minutes of digging I discovered a 1985 article in the Chicago Tribune which says that one of the defendants in the case had been charged with obstruction of justice precisely for doing that. (The fact that he wasn’t convicted doesn’t mean very much, for the reasons that are explained on Breitbart, among other venues.) This illustrates a tactic journalists commonly use to spread propaganda. They don’t explicitly include some crucial information that would reveal the truth, but they make a very cryptic reference to it, so that if they’re accused of hiding it they have plausible deniability. Again, I really wish people did their homework, before they buy into the shameless demagoguery of Elizabeth Warren and her ilk.