This video from the USA says about itself:
Is Trump‘s Attorney General Jeff Sessions a Racist?
23 November 2016
Is Trump’s Attorney General Jeff Sessions a racist? TYT’s Eric Byler spoke to Civil Rights Attorney J. Gerald Hebert, a key witness who testified in the 1986 Senate confirmation hearing for Jeff Sessions’ judicial appointment by Ronald Reagan. Sessions was forced to withdraw his name when Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee chose not to recommend him for a confirmation vote, based on racially insensitive attitudes and remarks. Hebert would not say that Sessions was a racist in 1986. Byler asked him if his view had changed based on Sessions voting record as a U.S. Senator.
Hebert wrote in an editorial published in the Washington Post:
“I was a young lawyer in the civil rights division at the Justice Department in 1981 when I first encountered Jeff Sessions. At the time, Sessions was the new U.S. attorney for Alabama. I met him while I was handling a major voting rights case in Mobile, and I relayed a rumor I’d heard: A federal judge there had allegedly referred to a civil rights lawyer as ‘a traitor to his race’ for taking on black clients. Sessions responded, ‘Well, maybe he is.’
“Five years later, that startling incident came up again, after Sessions was nominated for a federal judgeship. The American Bar Association contacted me and my supervisor to ask for background on Sessions, as was standard in those days for judicial confirmations. I told the ABA about conversations I’d had with the U.S. attorney in which he referred to the NAACP and the American Civil Liberties Union as ‘un-American.’ As he saw it, by fighting for racial equality, these groups were “trying to force civil rights down the throats of people who were trying to put problems behind them.”
Read more here.
Special thanks to Corey Goldstone and Nick Cockrell of Campaign Legal Center for faciliting this interview.
By Solomon Hughes in Britain today:
Torygraph
The Daily Telegraph in Britain is often called ‘Daily Torygraph’ because of its links with the Conservative (Tory) party.
flummoxed by Trump
The election of Donald Trump as US president has thrown some of the Tory press into confusion.
The Telegraph has been pushing harder and harder to the right. But it seems genuinely nervous about a US president who is to the right even of a Telegraph editorial.
Spouting off in the press is one thing, but this is a man with his hands on the levers of power — including the nuclear button. And the Telegraph is nervous.
The paper seems to recognise how bad Team Trump is, in particular the “nasty edge” of his senior counsellor and boss of extreme right website Breitbart, Steve Bannon.
According to the Telegraph, Bannon is variously “a provocateur whose ‘alt-right’ web forum is a haven for white supremacists and anti-semites” and “a street brawler.”
It notes that “many former employees of Breitbart News are afraid of Steve Bannon.”
This is a big turnaround from a Telegraph that, when it was politically convenient, treated Bannon’s Breitbart as a respectable source.
This May the Telegraph reported, with a straight face, a Breitbart tale that Hamas was issuing statements publicly backing Jeremy Corbyn.
According to the Breitbart story promoted on the pages of the Telegraph, a Hamas spokesperson called Corbyn’s election a “painful hit on the zionist enemy.”
Breitbart has a long history of fake stories that fall apart.
The Corbyn/Hamas claim, like many Breitbart stories, looked like a ropey tale and soon disintegrated: the Breitbart story was written by its man Aaron Klein, author of one book revealing Barack Obama was “the Manchurian president” with “ties to communists, socialists and other anti-American extremists,” and another book that “reveal[s] the existence of a powerful Marxist-socialist bloc in [the US] Congress.”
So he seems like a man with a colourful imagination rather than a reliable source. The Hamas story referred to a Maoist-sounding but inaccurate “Chairman Corbyn.”
It was denied by Hamas. But despite the obvious flashing warning lights and dodgy Breitbart provenance, the Telegraph reproduced the tale in full, and never reported the subsequent denial.
When it comes to dubious knocking copy, the Telegraph seems happy with stories from a “haven for white supremacists and anti-semites” like Breitbart.
But it seems less enthusiastic about this crew actually running the US.
Dear Kitty. Some blog 