Posted on 12/29/2017 3:50:24 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist
OK. You have ONE recusal. Go with it.
What?
I posted the transcript.
Quit looking at your pee pee and read the damn transcript.
I believe the proper thing for me to do, would be to recuse myself from any questions involving those kind of investigations that involve Secretary Clinton and that were raised during the campaign or to be otherwise connected to it.
GRASSLEY: OK. I think, that's -- let me emphasize then with a follow up question. To be very clear, you intend to recuse yourself from both the Clinton e-mail investigation and any matters involving the Clinton Foundation, if there are any?
SESSIONS: Yes.
Not on excerpt list and left scroll bar blocks the text - unreadable.
Here it is in full.
************
During the holiday season, many of us think about what we can do to help people struggling with poverty. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, on the other hand, decided just before Christmas to rescind a guidance meant to protect low-income Americans.
The 2016 guidance, issued by former President Obama’s Justice Department, urged state and local courts nationwide to abide by constitutional principles prohibiting the jailing of poor people who cannot afford to pay court fines and fees. Jeff Sessions’ action makes clear that he and his Justice Department are unconcerned by courts trampling on the rights of poor people.
The Obama Justice Department issued the 2016 letter after reports and lawsuits by the ACLU and other groups revealed how modern-day debtors’ prisons function in more than a dozen states, despite the fact that the U.S. two centuries ago formally outlawed jailing people simply because they have unpaid debts.
These efforts revealed that poor people were being locked up in Georgia, Washington, Mississippi, and elsewhere without court hearings or legal representation when they could not pay fines and fees for traffic tickets or other civil infractions or criminal offenses. These efforts also show that modern-day debtors’ prisons result from state laws allowing or requiring the suspension of driver’s licenses for unpaid court fines or fees without first requiring confirmation that the person could actually pay.
Modern-day debtors’ prisons received unprecedented national attention in 2015 when the Justice Department issued a 185-page report in its investigation of the Ferguson Police Department after the shooting of teenager Michael Brown. It documented how Ferguson police sought to advance the “City’s focus on revenue rather than ... public safety needs,” leading to the routine incarceration of poor people to elicit court fine and fee payments, which raised due process concerns and reflected racial bias.
This wave of attention on draconian debtors’ prisons spurred the Justice Department to issue the 2016 letter on fines and fees.
Prior to rescinding the letter and other Obama-era guidances the attorney general claimed that such documents constitute overreach and “impose new obligations” on parties “outside the executive branch.” But that is not what the Justice Department letter on fines and fees did.
The Obama Justice Department showed leadership by reminding state chief justices and court administrators that the U.S. Constitution’s promises of due process and equal protection apply when courts impose and collect fines and fees. Far from creating new policy, the letter cited caselaw from the U.S. Supreme Court and other courts in support of seven constitutional principles. Among the most basic of these principles is the fact that the 14th Amendment prohibits jailing people for non-payment of court fines and fees without safeguards, including a hearing before a neutral judge to determine one’s ability to pay, and meaningful alternatives to jail for people who cannot pay.
Sessions’ withdrawal of the letter on fines and fees cannot rescind these principles or the caselaw on which they are based. Nor can it stop the ongoing momentum behind reform of modern-day debtors’ prisons in places like Biloxi, Mississippi; Missouri; Ohio; Michigan; and New Hampshire.
Several weeks ago, a federal court ruled that New Orleans judges faced a conflict of interest in jailing poor people for unpaid fines because the judges control the money collected and rely on it for court funding. That same week, a federal court issued a preliminary injunction halting Michigan’s system for suspending driver’s licenses upon non-payment of traffic tickets due to constitutional concerns. And days later, the Mississippi Department of Public Safety agreed to reinstate the driver’s licenses of all drivers whose licenses were suspended for non-payment of court fines and fees.
There is no place in this country for a justice system that lets rich people buy their freedom while poor people are locked up or lose their driver’s licenses because they can’t afford to pay money to courts. The momentum for change will continue even as the current Justice Department declines to lead by encouraging fairness and equal treatment of rich and poor.
Sessions has recused himself from the "Clinton e-mail" investigation, the "Clinton Foundation" investigation, and any investigation that might "otherwise be connected to" those investigations. That would include the dossier, the FISA warrant, Uranium One...etc.
Those are multiple recusals.
Well there you go.
That's not my quote. You shouldn't imply that it is by italicizing it as a response to my post.
And it's all that you have.
Actually I am fine. Mr. Jeff Sessions is your AG and I wake up with Bacon and Eggs. It is your bitch ass in a sling.
Trump won. Trump won. Trump won.
Good Luck and Happy New Year............
“Right, because taxpayers don’t foot any of the bill for people in jail.”
Good point. That is why prisons should be privatized entirely and run as any business would. The prisoners need to be doing their labor and pay back debt to society and their victims. No more tax payer dollars feeding these criminals while they enjoy their hotel stay.
WHAT THE CREDIT COMPANIES DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW - YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY OFF ALL YOUR DEBT - LET US HELP YOU PASS IT ON TO THE RESPONSIBLE
In today's society of irresponsibility, I'd love to see punishment for those who spend what they don't have - time after time after time - and keep getting away with stiffing the rest of us.
While “court fees” rightfully may offset the costs of providing the courts, I believe it wrong, and corruption-inducing, if a court “depends” on those fees for its funding.
We, the taxpayers, need to provide for our courts, but they should not be used as needed “revenue centers” where extracting all they can in fees is a necessity, or a desire, in how they are funded.
When someone does not have the funds for a fee, NOTHING stops the courts or the prosecutors from working out a payment plan, in installments of money or work from the person who cannot pay.
Suspending a driver’s license for failure to pay a court fee only helps insure the person may not keep any work they do have, or may get, that could help pay the fee. It’s stupid.
It seems some modern courts are in fact resurrecting de facto “debtors prisons”, and operating courts as a “revenue stream” inducing the collection of as much in “fees” as they can extract.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.