ELIZABETH WARREN - Only the 2nd Senator in U.S. History To be Barred From Speaking.

originally posted by: Konduit
The Democrats aren't sending their brightest...

Thanks, now I have to clean up the coffee that flew out of my mouth as I was taking a sip and laughed lol.
Hey they warned her not to go down that road, better to silence her that way than to run up and clamp a hand over her mouth like I would have done.
By the way, who was the 1st Senator to be silenced?

a reply to: TrueBrit



3:50 in

Letter wrote in '86
www.documentcloud.org...

I pick a side because I like the debate and opposing perspective.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Watch the video. She did paraphrase the speech.

or you can watch the MSM....

Link

See how they do this? See how it is reported?

She violated Senate rules.

She was punished for violating Senate rules.

This isn't rocket science. If it was, then the retards in congress wouldn't be able to work there.

Jeff Sessions helped get a KKK leader the death penalty

Jeff Sessions quoted support for the KKK is his bad joke "I thought the KKK were ok, until he learned they smoked pot"

Democrats going to the racist ploy? say it aint so. People aren't buying it anymore.

Here is an 1:25 minutes of stumping on the subject.

I found this article to be the most informative.

Warren Blocked From Speaking During Sessions Confirmation Debate

For anyone who is curious, she was warned over this...from the article...

Not long before McConnell came to the floor, Warren had an exchange with Daines. “The senator is reminded that it is a violation of Rule XIX of the Standing Rules of the Senate to impute to another senator or senators any conduct or motive unworthy or becoming [of] a senator,” Daines said, reading from prepared notes.

Montana Republican Sen. Steve Daines, presiding over the Senate, had issued the warning to Warren about impugning Sessions’ motives.

Eventually, it was explained that Warren was warned for the quote from Kennedy’s remarks to the Senate Judiciary Committee during consideration of Sessions’ ill-fated nomination for a federal judgeship. In those comments, Kennedy said, “He is, I believe, a disgrace to the Justice Department.”

Then she was barred for ignoring the warning by continuing on to read the Coretta Scott King letter.

a reply to: matafuchs

Of course. What I am asking is did that paraphrasing amount to a change in the tone and direction of the words written by King? And a careful examination of Kings letter, suggests that indeed, Warrens reading of it did NOT remove, water down, or change the intent of the letter one iota, rather highlighted the intent of it.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Kali74

I just wonder how anything in the public record can be considered "out of order" if it obviously pertains to the issue at hand.


But then, I am not an attorney.

No, you aren't. You are ignoring the reason Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell disbarred Warren. She broke rule XIX. That's not being subjective. It's upholding the Senate rules of debate about not saying bad things about fellow senators. It makes no difference if you are not expressing your own view but are quoting someone else's opinion. The fact that you are quoting it indicates your support for the view. Malicious intent is what counts, not whose opinion is being expressed or whether it was a matter of public record.

a reply to: TrueBrit

I got you. I don't know. I am from the thought that something like that, which is to referenced, should not be changed because then it would lead to accusations of picking and choosing. I feel she attacked it like she has in the past and to be honest people are sick of her bs. She lectures even when asking questions. Sorry, she to me is #2 only to Pelosi. We all know Maxine Waters is nuts already....

a reply to: micpsi

I would question whether it is possible to break those rules, while quoting someones testimonial letter, regarding the individual being discussed. Unless I miss my mark, it should not be possible to use senate rules, to prevent someone stating their case for, or against a particular individual being placed in a given position, because that would make it absolutely impossible for any argument to ever be made against any kind of appointment.

I mean, the man DID do the things he did back in the day, he DID make things unnecessarily hard for the civil rights activists and the people seeking the vote, he DID strong arm false witness from people. Those are, I think you would agree, pretty stout reasons for refusing a person a position. However, it is impossible to state, if the rules are as they have been described in this thread, that a person has committed acts immoral whilst in public service, without violating those rules. How then can argument be made against him?

"Sessions cannot be appointed"

"Why??"

"I cannot tell you without breaking the rules of the Senate."

"Oh, it cannot be anything important then, motion passed, Sessions is in, beer and kibble in ten people. Lets wrap this up!"

I mean, really?

a reply to: matafuchs

I think they were picking on her because of her native American heritage.

a reply to: Stormdancer777

I am sure that is it. Trump hates Indians.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
How then can argument be made against him?

"Sessions cannot be appointed"

"Why??"

"I cannot tell you without breaking the rules of the Senate."

"Oh, it cannot be anything important then, motion passed, Sessions is in, beer and kibble in ten people. Lets wrap this up!"

I mean, really?

Thank you for the accurate summary of what happened.

That's what it boils down to, isn't it? I've been watching some scathing testimonials in these hearings and they aren't considered out of line. Basically, it comes down to how effective the argument is, not how "impugning" it is. I think she was called out because that letter is such an effective argument against Sessions.

a reply to: Abysha

That is not what happened. You are all paraphrasing like she did. She talked for almost an hour so she was not silenced.

a reply to: TrueBrit

That's tough I gotta admit. Perhaps she could have listed the requirements for what makes for a good Attorney General (could have even been subjective) and finish it off with something like "based on these requirements I do not believe senator Sessions is the right person for the job." Or "based on these requirements I cannot support senator Sessions' nomination."

Don't know if that would fly but I believe it would have had a good chance.

For the record, someone else read the letter in its entirety...

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Again, RACE BAIT....sad...sad...sad...I wonder if Maddow will retract any of her statements? LOL

Its a tough situation.

I see how democrats or others could say that the use of this rule is authoritarian.

However, how long must we have to go on with the word "RACIST" being the end all be all of arguments?

Charges of racism are so overused that they are levied against people for mere policy positions, and you could find congressional record statements against almost any conservative politician that made unsubstantiated claims of racism.

In this instance of Warren, I would have rather they didn't invoke this rule. But she was warned over and over again.

She got what she wanted. She gets to pretend to be a victim, after all, she wasn't using her words to attack Sessions, she was just reading testimony.

She tweeted

"I will not be silent about a nominee for AG who has made derogatory & racist comments that have no place in our justice system."

Oh so she was trying to say that sessions maade racist comments. Does she have a recording of these comments? Oh no, just hearsay from people 30 years ago. Never mind his prosecuting KKK members and doing other things that had many minority groups praise him.

This is where the left is out now. They should be allowed to call all of their opponents racist based merely on hearsay.

The media is silent on this debate tactic, but worried that attempts to stop this will lead to the end of free debate.

a reply to: totalperdition

I understand that it is possible that she could have stated that she did not believe he was right for the job, but she could not have explained why without breaking the rules.

This obviously needs stating more baldly, so as to remove any ambiguity...

Under the rules as they are described in this thread, she could not have given an explanation as to why she felt that Mr Sessions was inappropriate for the role, nor argued in defence of her analysis, because she would have been prevented from mentioning his past, the frankly criminal manner in which he acted during the period referred to in Kings letter, because ALL the things she could have qualified her decision with, happen to make Mr Sessions look like a scumbag. So she could have said any number of things, but she would have been prevented from providing evidence of his wrong doing, because in order to do so, she would have had to have introduced that evidence to the Senate, and how would she be able to do that?

"Here are some materials, which I am not at liberty to discuss the contents of, but advise you to examine thoroughly?" That would not fly either, because people would want to know what they were looking at, and what contextual relevance it has to the issue at hand, and they would ask, maybe (knowing the pettiness of politicians) refuse to read or observe the material at all, unless a full summary were given, and then again, no summary could be given, because the summary would wind up looking like a potted version of "with the greatest possible respect, the materials show that the man you are talking about is a far right piece of excrement of the lowest order, and is not fit to stand in this room, let alone occupy any position of significance."

Now, I personally understand the need for decorum. I really do. But it has to be said that if decorum prevents a person from telling the truth, then what one is observing is NOT decorum, but a defence mechanism for people who are nothing more than walking dirt. A person speaking in the Senate, MUST be able to tell the absolute truth, not how they feel, not what they think, but what the facts are. If the facts are that a person is unfit for a job because he has proven that he has no ability to reign in his prejudice, that he WILL abuse his power, that he uses his power in a biased and phobic fashion, that he endangers the legitimacy of any process he is part of because of that very fact, then those facts MUST be voiced, and what is more it must NEVER be the case that someone voicing those facts might be penalised for it.

The very idea is disgusting.

a reply to: TrueBrit

You say the facts must be presented, not feelings.

She claims Sessions made racist comments. Can you post me where I can here those comments?

Or is she just repeating her FEELINGS that a rumor she heard must be true?

Well what a great Senate we will have under this system.

"Well I heard that Senator Sanders said he likes to steal money from small children, and I FEEL like he is the kind of guy that would do that, so I am going to discuss what a monster he is for this for the next 2 hours."