Trump endorses Tommy Tuberville — Tommy Tuberville, the opponent to Jeff Sessions in the Alabama Senate race.

Tommy Tuberville (@TTuberville) is running for the U.S. Senate from the Great State of Alabama. Tommy was a terrific head football coach at Auburn University. He is a REAL LEADER who will never let MAGA/KAG, or our Country, down! Tommy will protect your Second Amendment....

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 11, 2020

IN THE COMMENTS: Larry J says: "I know some who say Tuberville's home address is in Florida, not Alabama. That wouldn't be a problem in New York where they have a history of electing people from out of state (Bobby Kennedy and Hillary Clinton) but it could be an issue here."

Interesting! I found this:

Who is the first candidate that @TTuberville has EVER supported? You guessed it - himself, TOURIST TOMMY TUBERVILLE! pic.twitter.com/XAl0pJqUE0

— Jeff Sessions (@jeffsessions) March 9, 2020

"This is what happens..."

This is what happens to someone who loyally gets appointed Attorney General of the United States & then doesn’t have the wisdom or courage to stare down & end the phony Russia Witch Hunt. Recuses himself on FIRST DAY in office, and the Mueller Scam begins! https://t.co/2jGnRgOS6h

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2020

I guess I'll go ahead and make a Tommy Tuberville tag.

IN THE COMMENTS: TheThinMan identifies "This is what happens..." as a line from "The Big Lebowski" (which is NSFW and I'll leave it to you to decide how much it's something Trump means to say to Jeff Sessions):

"Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala.), who faces a tough reelection race in Alabama, will vote to convict President Donald Trump on both articles of impeachment."

Politico reports.

“Senators are elected to make tough choices. We are required to study the facts of each issue before us and exercise our independent judgment in keeping with the oaths we take. The gravity of this moment, the seriousness of the charges, and the implications for future presidencies and Congresses all contributed to the difficulty with which I have arrived at my decision," Jones said in a statement.

I assume that's it for Doug Jones as a Senator from Alabama.

ADDED: I guess he was already expecting to lose his seat, which he took over when Jeff Sessions got up for a moment to go be Attorney General. Jeff's ready to sit down again, so it was time to get up and out of there anyway.

First!

Out of the 100 United State Senators, I was the very first one to stand with @realDonaldTrump and I will keep fighting for him and his agenda. pic.twitter.com/Cf0tN8nzGl

— Jeff Sessions (@jeffsessions) November 14, 2019

"The Justice Department will not bring federal charges against a New York City police officer in the death of Eric Garner, ending a yearslong inquiry..."

"... into a case that sharply divided officials and prompted national protests over excessive force by the police, according to three people briefed on the decision....  A state grand jury declined to bring charges against Officer Pantaleo in December 2014.... But a federal investigation into Mr. Garner’s death proceeded, sharply dividing the Justice Department under four attorneys general and two presidents.... The attorney general at the time of the death, Eric H. Holder Jr., said that evidence strongly suggested that the federal government should bring charges against Officer Pantaleo.... While career civil rights prosecutors agreed with Mr. Holder, prosecutors under the United States attorney in Brooklyn, Loretta E. Lynch, sharply disagreed.... After Ms. Lynch succeeded Mr. Holder in April 2015, officials... worked to convince her that the officers had used excessive force and had likely violated Mr. Garner’s civil rights.... But the case stalled again after Mr. Trump won the presidential election and appointed Jeff Sessions as his attorney general. Civil rights division prosecutors recommended that charges be brought, and they asked the deputy attorney general at the time, Rod J. Rosenstein, about indicting Officer Pantaleo. But Mr. Rosenstein did not allow the department to move forward on an indictment, and many officials said they believed that there was a good chance that the government would lose the case should it go to trial...."

From "Eric Garner’s Death Will Not Lead to Federal Charges for N.Y.P.D. Officer/The decision came five years after Mr. Garner’s dying words — 'I can’t breathe' — became a rallying cry" (NYT).

"If Sessions is fired, there will be holy hell to pay. Any effort to go after Mueller will be the beginning of the end of the Trump presidency."

Said Lindsey Graham back in July 2017, quoted in "‘Coward’ Lindsey Graham Called Out For Empty Vow To Unleash ‘Holy Hell’ On Trump/The South Carolina senator once warned the president not to fire Jeff Sessions. Now, he’s singing a different tune" (HuffPo).

"President Trump forced out Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Wednesday, ending a partnership that soured almost from the start of the administration..."

"... and degenerated into one of the most acrimonious public standoffs between a commander in chief and a senior cabinet member in modern American history. Mr. Sessions’s resignation, made at the president’s request, was being delivered to John Kelly, Mr. Trump’s chief of staff. It came just a day after midterm elections in which Democrats captured control of the House, but Republican success in holding onto the Senate and building their slim majority may make it easier for the president to confirm a successor.... Mr. Trump never forgave Mr. Sessions [for recusing himself from the Mueller investigation], and over the next year and a half, his complaints about Mr. Sessions on Twitter and in his public comments became more pointed and insulting....  As attorney general, Mr. Sessions made a forceful mark on the Justice Department. He rolled back some of President Barack Obama’s signature policies as he encouraged federal prosecutors to pursue the toughest possible charges and sentences against criminal suspects. He successfully advised Mr. Trump to rescind Mr. Obama’s program protecting nearly 700,000 young immigrants who were brought to the country illegally as children. He sued California over its sanctuary laws and targeted states that legalized marijuana."

The NYT reports.

"Mr. Trump’s contempt for non-Ivy-educated lawyers is all the more striking, given that he has surrounded himself with them."

"His own lawyer, Jay Sekulow, took his law degree from Mercer University, in Macon, Ga. Michael Cohen, Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer for many years and tasked with more than a few important lawyerly duties, is a graduate of the Western Michigan University Thomas M. Cooley Law School, in Lansing, while another personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, went to New York University for law school. The president’s current White House counsel, Don McGahn, attended the Widener University School of Law, in Wilmington, Del."

From "In Defense of the Country Lawyer/Is Jeff Sessions a 'dumb Southerner' because he didn’t go to an Ivy League school? A law professor on President Trump’s contempt for the attorney general" (NYT) by Ronald J. Krotoszynski Jr., who's a lawprof at the University of Alabama, which counts Jeff Sessions among its alumni.

[O]ne could argue that while an Ivy League school provides a wonderful education in the law, it quite often sets a person on a narrowly defined career path. On the résumés of the current Supreme Court, you find academic posts, high-level government positions, corporate law partnerships — but very little of the contact with everyday people that comes from, say, working as a trial lawyer.... [I]t is schools like the University of Alabama that are producing the type of lawyers whose careers teach them to understand and practice the kind of law that impacts most Americans.

What’s more, there is something telling in Mr. Trump’s sneering contempt for Southern lawyers in particular. It intersects with a general contempt for the South as an intellectually backward region and for the stereotype of the “country lawyer” as a backward, benighted legal mind....

Trump is — somewhere in there — a big elitist. And that must drive the elitists mad. He really is one of them, isn't he? So why doesn't he stay in his place and know that he's far down in the pecking order of elitists? How can he jump over in amongst the non-elites and win crowds? Don't those people see how he looks down on them? He needs to get back over here where the elite can look down on him, the way he looks down on the non-elite lawyers he's got in his inner circle.

It's a weird elite/non-elite game he's playing, and the elite don't want to understand it. They want to stop it.

"'It’s fantastic,' Mr. Trump said about his rapport with Mr. Rosenstein when a spokesman told him The Wall Street Journal was seeking a comment."

"'We have great relationship. Make sure you tell them that.' Mr. Rosenstein declined to comment for this article. In a statement, a Justice Department spokeswoman said he has a 'productive working relationship' with Mr. Trump. As the Mueller investigation proceeds, their relationship may sour. Mr. Trump has consistently called it a 'witch hunt,' and Mr. Rosenstein has said protecting the probe is a priority. But the rapprochement may signal that, despite the president’s public statements, the investigation isn’t in immediate danger of being halted. Senior White House officials privately praise Mr. Rosenstein’s handling of demands by congressional Republicans to share internal documents on the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s investigations of Hillary Clinton’s email server and any Trump campaign contacts with Russia. Some Trump allies—such as Reps. Mark Meadows (R., N.C.) and Jim Jordan (R., Ohio)—accuse Mr. Rosenstein of stonewalling, but White House officials say they view their effort to impeach Mr. Rosenstein as a sideshow. Indeed, the president has recently come to rely on Mr. Rosenstein, the No. 2 at the Justice Department whom the White House increasingly views as the No. 1, given the president’s disenchantment with Attorney General Jeff Sessions over his decision to recuse himself from the Russia investigation because he served on the Trump campaign...."

From "'It’s Fantastic!' Trump Warms to Rosenstein/Nearly fired by the president, the No. 2 Justice official—the man in charge of the Mueller probe—builds a rapport" in The Wall Street Journal, which seems available without a subscription. I got in anyway.

"Complaining the federal government has been 'thwarted' in its attempt to enforce immigration laws..."

"... Attorney General Jeff Sessions asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene Monday in his feud with Chicago over so-called sanctuary city policies. Sessions wants the high court to limit to Chicago a nationwide injunction blocking him from applying new conditions to grant money as he tries to force cities to cooperate with immigration authorities. But in a 41-page application to the Supreme Court, Solicitor General Noel Francisco also framed the case as a larger fight over the use of sweeping, 'categorical' orders from district courts. He argued the high court should 'address the propriety of enjoining a federal immigration policy everywhere at the behest of one litigant.' U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber handed down the injunction in the Chicago case last September. Sessions has also tried, without success, to persuade the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to limit the injunction to the city...."

The Chicago Sun-Times reports.

Jeff Sessions is making us talk about what the Bible says.

I'm reading "Sessions says the Bible justifies separating immigrant families. The verses he cited are infamous" by Kyle Swenson in The Washington Post. Asked to defend the separation of children from parents taking them illegally across the U.S. border, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said:

“I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained the government for his purposes... Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves. Consistent, fair application of the law is in itself a good and moral thing, and that protects the weak and protects the lawful.”

Swenson observes:

The passage — “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God” — has been read as an unequivocal order for Christians to obey state authority, a reading that not only justified Southern slavery but also authoritarian rule in Nazi Germany and South African apartheid.

And what about other things in the New Testament? Stephen Colbert joked darkly:

“Hey, don’t bring God into this. I don’t think God picked you, because I don’t worship Vladimir Putin... Jesus said, ‘Suffer the children to come unto me.’ But I’m pretty sure all Sessions saw was the words ‘children’ and ‘suffer’ and said, ‘I’m on it.’ ”

Swenson collects other pro-immigrant Christian responses

“I guess Sessions forgot about the Gospels part of the Bible. Matthew 25:35 says ‘For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,’ ” Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) said on Twitter. “Nothing in the Bible says to separate kids from parents. It teaches the opposite.”...

Theology scholar Mike Frost wrote in 2016 that Romans 13 should not be used to quell dissent because it comes from a period when Christians faced persecution from the Roman Emperor Nero.

“This is the guy who was said to have had Christians dipped in oil and set on fire to light his garden at night,” Frost wrote. “It makes perfect sense that Paul would commend the fledgling church to keep its head down, to avoid rocking the boat, to submit quietly to the prevailing political winds. They had no choice. They lived under the authority of a dictator.”

Quite aside from what the Bible says, should the Attorney General be using the Bible to defend a government policy? One might answer yes, because the policy was challenged morally, and even though it is theoretically possible to discuss morality without religion and some people can only discuss morality without religion, for many people morality is bound up with religion, and it should be at least permissible to discuss the morality of a public policy in terms of religion. There are consequences to using religion this way, though, of course. It may feel exclusionary to those who don't share the religion or who have a religious problem with interpreting scripture for a political purpose. And if you've got a passage for your position, then I'll have a passage for mine, and I can reinterpret yours and you can reinterpret mine, and we may find ourselves making garbage out of what we were only using in the first place because we posed as believing it was holy.

By the way, we all feel bad for the children, but I'm seeing a spotlight on the point when the children are removed from parents who are being sent to prison. If the separation is wrong, what is the less wrong thing that ought to be done instead?  I'm not seeing anyone talking about that. Am I missing everything that answers my question or are there reasons why no one wants to talk about that?

ADDED: At National Review, Rich Lowry explains the limitation imposed by the Flores Consent Decree (from 1997):

It says that unaccompanied children can be held only 20 days. A ruling by the Ninth Circuit extended this 20-day limit to children who come as part of family units. So even if we want to hold a family unit together, we are forbidden from doing so.

"Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Monday made it all but impossible for asylum seekers to gain entry into the United States by citing fears of domestic abuse or gang violence..."

"... in a ruling that could have a broad effect on the flow of migrants from Central America. Mr. Sessions’s decision in a closely watched domestic violence case is the latest turn in a long-running debate over what constitutes a need for asylum. He reversed an immigration appeals court ruling that granted it to a Salvadoran woman who said she had been sexually, emotionally and physically abused by her husband.... Asylum claims have expanded too broadly to include victims of 'private violence,' like domestic violence or gangs, Mr. Sessions wrote.... 'The prototypical refugee flees her home country because the government has persecuted her,' Mr. Sessions wrote in his ruling... 'An alien may suffer threats and violence in a foreign country for any number of reasons relating to her social, economic, family or other personal circumstances... Yet the asylum statute does not provide redress for all misfortune.... Generally, claims by aliens pertaining to domestic violence or gang violence perpetrated by nongovernmental actors will not qualify for asylum.'"

The NYT reports.

I'm not sure what the NYT was trying to do by serving up this image in the middle of that article:



It was an ad for "luxury vehicles for older drivers" (which I didn't click into). But that image! Look at that hyper-privileged white woman! I guess she's older... older, blonder... more relaxed. More relaxed than the women who are sexually, emotionally, and physically abused by nongovernmental men in Central America. What is she watching so calmly on that TV that's large enough to annoy the driver but too small to be comfortable to watch at leg's length? It looks like an ad for a car, perhaps an ad with a lady like her watching an ad for a car like hers and ladies inside cars watching ladies inside cars ad infinitum. And who is that man, so staunchly serving, in white gloves with rigidly extended arms? He can't be assisting all the women of the world whose men happen to be brutes. He's got only this one languid woman to cosset and squire about — this woman named America.

Trump says he'll probably sign the bill that would free the states to fully legalize marijuana.

NBC News reports.

"I support Senator Gardner. I know exactly what he's doing," Trump told reporters when asked about the legislation. "We're looking at it. But I probably will end up supporting that, yes."

His backing could be seen as yet another rebuke of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who in January gave U.S. attorneys free rein to enforce federal laws against marijuana even in states where pot is legal. The bill would expressly overturn that policy.

I don't see it as a rebuke. Sessions is talking about enforcing the law on the books. Trump is talking about changing the law so there's nothing to speak of enforcing or failing to enforce. I hate the middle position that has prevailed for years, with something going on openly that is in violation of strict and onerous federal criminal law and just a policy of doing nothing about it. Either it's a legitimate business and ordinary law-abiding people like me can in good conscience patronize that business or it is not. It's moronic to leave this sector of the economy in limbo. Don't make Sessions the scapegoat. Change the damned law!

Attorney Aaron Herzberg of the cannabis-focused Puzzle Group Law Firm in Los Angeles said the president's remarks will "knock the socks off the industry" and provide some security for investors interested in the sector. The lawyer noted that long-desired legal banking for pot businesses seems to be an aim of the bill.

Indeed, [the bill's co-sponsor, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth] Warren said during a news conference introducing the bill earlier this week, current federal policy "forces a multibillion-dollar industry to operate all in cash. That's bad for business," she said, "and bad for safety.

"Attorney General Jeff Sessions is being lambasted as the uncool parent in Washington, and maybe the universe..."

"... for rescinding an Obama Administration directive that decriminalized marijuana in states that have legalized the drug. But even if you're a legalizer, you should give the AG some credit for forcing a debate on the rule of law that Congress should settle.... [I]nstead of taking the cop-out of blaming Mr. Sessions, legalizers in Congress ought to have the courage of their convictions and try to decriminalize pot nationwide. Let Senators Cory Gardner and Kamala Harris persuade their colleagues that what's good for Colorado and California is good for the country."

Say the editors of The Wall Street Journal.

It's annoying that you can't read that without a subscription, but I've quoted enough to allow you to enjoy the subtle political snark that goes along with what is a good policy proposal.

It's too easy for liberals to take shots at Sessions. Let's see some leadership in Congress, where the real work needs to be done, and let's see it from Democrats who — we keep hearing — are presidential material.

Gardner and Harris currently represent people in states who've said — through their democratic process — that they want legalized marijuana, so let's see these Senators show what their leadership is made of. They don't have to be populists ,of course, and that's not the traditional view of what Senators are supposed to do.*

But I'd like to see journalists do what they are supposed to do and question Gardner and Harris about whether they will lead the way on this issue, and — if they won't — make them explain why they decline to give their people what they want.

___________________

* From Robert A. Caro's "Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson III" (pp. 7-8):

“The use of the Senate,” [James] Madison said, “is to consist in its proceeding with more coolness, with more system, and with more wisdom, than the popular branch.” It should, he said, be “an anchor against popular fluctuations.” He drew for parallels on classical history, which, he said, “informs us of no long-lived republic which had not a Senate.” In two of the three “long-lived” republics of antiquity, Sparta and Rome, and probably in the third— Carthage (about whose governmental institutions less was known)— senators served for life. “These examples … when compared with the fugitive and turbulent existence of other ancient republics, [are] very instructive proofs of the necessity of some institution that will blend stability with liberty.” Thomas Jefferson had been in Paris during the Convention, serving as minister to France. When he returned, he asked George Washington over breakfast why the President had agreed to a two-house Congress. According to a story that may be apocryphal, Washington replied with his own question: “Why did you pour your tea into that saucer?” And when Jefferson answered, “To cool it,” Washington said, “Just so. We pour House legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.” The resolution providing for a two-house Congress was agreed to by the Constitutional Convention with almost no debate or dissent. 

ADDED: Who the hell pours their tea into a saucer to cool it anymore? Speaking of uncool... We're drinking coffee. We like it hot. It comes in a mug. You don't get a saucer. And if you did, and you poured your hot beverage into the saucer and drank from the saucer, people would regard you as a lout.

"The Trump administration freed federal prosecutors on Thursday to more aggressively enforce marijuana laws..."

"... effectively threatening to undermine the legalization movement that has spread to six states, most recently California. In a move that raised doubts about the viability and growth of the burgeoning commercial marijuana industry, Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded an Obama-era policy that had discouraged federal prosecutors from bringing charges of marijuana-related crimes in states that have legalized sales of the drug. In a statement, Mr. Sessions said the Obama-era guidance undermined 'the rule of law' and the Justice Department’s mission to enforce federal statutes. 'Today’s memo on federal marijuana enforcement simply directs all U.S. attorneys to use previously established prosecutorial principles that provide them all the necessary tools to disrupt criminal organizations, tackle the growing drug crisis, and thwart violent crime across our country,' he said. In a briefing with reporters, Justice Department officials refused to say whether they intended for federal prosecutors to carry out a federal crackdown on marijuana dispensaries, or whether the Trump administration was merely creating ambiguity to chill growth of the semi-legal commercial marijuana industry."

The NYT reports.

I loathe the disorder of the seeming legalization while there is still a threat of prosecution under federal law. As I read today's statement, the kinds of "legalized" drug sales we're seeing in California and Colorado are not really going to be the target of prosecution. The idea is to empower prosecutors to use marijuana laws where it is part of dealing with violent crime and larger drug problems.

But the haziness about marijuana is ridiculous. I'd like to see Trump — in this year's State of the Union Address — propose legislation that would fully legalize the marijuana operations that various states have authorized.

"President Trump did not need to send a memo or telephone his attorney general to make his desires known. He broadcast them for all the world to see on Twitter."

"The instruction was clear: The Justice Department should investigate his defeated opponent from last year’s campaign. However they were delivered, Mr. Trump’s demands have ricocheted through the halls of the Justice Department, where Attorney General Jeff Sessions has now ordered career prosecutors to evaluate various accusations against Hillary Clinton and report back on whether a special counsel should be appointed to investigate her. Mr. Sessions has made no decision, and in soliciting the assessment of department lawyers, he may be seeking a way out of the bind his boss has put him in by effectively putting the matter in the hands of professionals who were not politically appointed. But if he or his deputy authorizes a new investigation of Mrs. Clinton, it would shatter norms established after Watergate that are intended to prevent presidents from using law enforcement agencies against political rivals....."

So begins the NYT report "Trump Shatters Longstanding Norms by Pressing for Clinton Investigation."

I tend to think that if Trump really wanted his erstwhile opponent investigated he would have refrained from sounding so clear. His speaking openly about it makes it more difficult to have an actual investigation. The kind of preemptive criticism that you see in this NYT article is exactly what you could expect and Trump must know that.

So I'm going to assume Trump doesn't want the investigation. His tweets and other statements about "crooked Hillary" and his inability to control the Justice Department are not a means to an end but the end in itself. It's very efficient. The Justice Department will demonstrate its independence, and the critics will be left screaming at the sky.

"President Donald Trump plans to cut off subsidy payments to insurers selling Obamacare coverage..."

Politico reports.

“Based on guidance from the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and Human Services has concluded that there is no appropriation for cost-sharing reduction payments to insurance companies under Obamacare,” [Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders] said. “In light of this analysis, the Government cannot lawfully make the cost-sharing reduction payments. …The bailout of insurance companies through these unlawful payments is yet another example of how the previous administration abused taxpayer dollars and skirted the law to prop up a broken system.”...

While Republican lawmakers complained the subsidies were never properly appropriated by Congress, many were wary of ending them suddenly....

"It's time for Congress to fix this bill. That's what needs to happen. Congress has got to get together," [Attorney General Jeff Sessions] said. "Republicans and the Democrats, they've got to come on board and they've got to develop a plan that will actually work. It can not continue in this fashion. It's in a death spiral it seems to me."

Trump is carrying on the Obama tradition of doing everything in the Executive Branch. The complaints should be directed at Congress.

"I worry that there is a narrative that is being suggested — that is a false narrative — that campuses are not places that respect free speech and the rights of people to engage with and listen to speakers."

Said Peter McDonough, vice president and general counsel of the American Council on Education, quoted in a Chronicle of Higher Education article about the Justice Department, under Jeff Sessions, intervening in campus free-speech cases.

There's a quote from University of Chicago lawprof Geoffrey R. Stone: “I can see the federal government intervening to put its two cents in, but they have to be doing it in a principled and honest way.... There’s no evidence that they are willing to do that. They’re going to pick and choose the cases that fit their perspective.”

Sessions has made a statement (accompanying a court filing) asserting a “national recommitment to free speech on campus and to ensuring First Amendment rights is long overdue. Which is why, starting today, the Department of Justice will do its part in this struggle.” And in a recent speech at Georgetown, he said college campuses were an “echo chamber of political correctness and homogeneous thought, a shelter for fragile egos.”

"It does meet the definition of domestic terrorism in our statute."

Said Jeff Sessions, speaking of the Charlottesville incident (NYT).

“You can be sure we will charge and advance the investigation toward the most serious charges that can be brought because this is unequivocally an unacceptable evil attack,” Mr. Sessions said, adding that terrorism and civil rights investigators were working on the case....

The “domestic terrorism” language is largely symbolic — many of the law's stiffest penalties are for international terrorism that do not apply domestically. But the debate over language has raged for more than a decade, as Muslim groups in particular argue that the word terrorism is used only when the attackers are Muslim....

Trump can fire Sessions, Rosenstein, and Mueller, so "The real question is why Trump doesn’t fire them himself rather than whine constantly about all three of them."

Ed Morrissey frames the question, and once the question is framed, I think you see the answer, don't you?

And that's why "Trump will sit and fume, but do nothing about it."

And if you see it, obviously Sessions, Rosenstein, and Mueller know it.