If Justice Is Really Blind, Jeff Sessions Must Resign

If Justice Is Really Blind, Jeff Sessions Must Resign
|
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III is a man out of time, a holdover from an age when some people believed that certain groups were exempt from the rule of law. He may be out of time in another way, too: His days as attorney general might be numbered.

Even in the Senate, Sessions was something of a fringe figure on the far right. Then he had the foresight or good timing to be one of the first politicians to get on board the Trump train. Sessions quickly moved, in the words of one headline, “from the fringe to prime-time.”

How extreme is Jeff Sessions? The head of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Project, Heidi Beirich, reviewed Session’s comments about Muslims and immigrants and concluded he had engaged in “hate speech.” She calls the new extent of Sessions’ influence “a tragedy for American politics.”

Sessions once described the N.A.A.C.P. and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference as “un-American” and “Communist inspired.” As Alabama’s Attorney General, he used a traditionally segregationist state’s-rights argument to defend what historian Thomas Sugrue called that state’s system of “separate and unequal education.”

Segregationist South Carolina Sen. Strom Thurmond once said that he and Sessions “think alike, act alike and vote alike.” Sen. Edward M. Kennedy called him “a throwback to a shameful era.” Coretta Scott King wrote that Sessions had “used the awesome powers of his office in a shabby attempt to intimidate and frighten elderly black voters.”

The question now is, do Sessions and Trump believe that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law? There’s compelling evidence that Sessions committed perjury. When asked by Sen. Al Franken at his confirmation hearing if “anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign,” Sessions replied:

Sen. Franken, I’m not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.

It turns out that he did, twice.

Richard Painter, who was the White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush, says that “Mr. Sessions did not truthfully and completely testify,” and makes a convincing case for his resignation or dismissal.

Sessions said this about perjury charges against then-President Bill Clinton: “In America, the Supreme Court and the American people believe no one is above the law.”

Does he really believe that? Consider this timeline:

On Thursday, February 23, Sessions announced that the Justice Department would suspend an Obama-era ban on doing business with private, for-profit prison companies. That means the United States government has once again embraced the mass incarceration industry.

“In less than a week, Sessions and Trump made three moves that selectively bring the weight of law enforcement down on minorities and the poor.”

There is a long-standing pattern of discrimination in prison sentencing. For-profit prison corporations make money from the commodification of black bodies. That’s a shameful tradition as old as the nation itself, and it just received a new lease on life.

On Tuesday, February 28, Sessions announced that the Justice Department would “pull back” on filing civil rights lawsuits against police departments who have engaged in patterns of discriminatory conduct.

Later that evening, President Trump announced the creation of a new law enforcement organization that will focus exclusively on crimes committed by immigrants – even though immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans.

In less than a week, Sessions and Trump made three moves that selectively bring the weight of law enforcement down on minorities and the poor. Then, on Thursday, March 2, Sessions declined to resign over his senate testimony.

The problem isn’t Russia. Democrats have been overly eager to embrace a report from intelligence chief James Clapper regarding Russian involvement in last year’s presidential election. That report is poorly written and unsubstantiated, but it allows the Democratic establishment to evade responsibility for a series of systematic political failures. Ironically, Clapper also appears to have perjured himself in senate testimony.

Nevertheless, serious questions have been raised about the Trump campaign and Russian interests. These questions must be answered.

Unfortunately, Clapper’s report ignores the most promising and well-documented line of investigation: the web of business relationships between Russia, Trump, and Trump associates like Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. Instead of exploring these connections, the Clapper report scapegoats left-wing political speech instead.

The American people deserve answers the Clapper report doesn’t provide. There must be an independent investigation into the election. Sessions did not promise that, and leaders of both parties should demand it. They should also make it clear that no one is above the law, by demanding an independent criminal investigation of Sessions’ Senate testimony.

Recusal is not enough. Jeff Sessions has shown that he is not fit to serve as attorney general. In the name of equal justice for all, he must resign.

Our 2024 Coverage Needs You

As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.

Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.

to keep our news free for all.

Support HuffPost

Before You Go

Trump Wants To Repeal The Clean Water Rule. Here’s What’s At Stake
The drinking water of millions of Americans(01 of04)
Open Image Modal
A repeal of the Clean Water Rule could threaten the drinking water of 117 million Americans, according to a recent nationwide analysis by the Environmental Working Group.

More than one-third of Americans get at least some of their drinking water from small streams, according to the report. More than 72 million Americans rely on small streams for more than halfof their water.

In 21 different states, small streams were found to provide drinking water for 1 million or more people. More than 5 million people in New York, Pennsylvania and Texas get drinking water from small streams, said the EWG, as do more than 3 million people in Arizona, California, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina and Ohio.

"Small streams are where big rivers start, and the best science confirms that dirty streams means even dirtier rivers,” EWG said in a statement. “Undermining, weakening or rescinding [the Clean Water Rule] is a gift to corporate polluters and Big Ag, and a threat to public health and the environment.”
(credit:Reuters)
The health of flora, fauna and habitats(02 of04)
Open Image Modal
“Repeal of the [Clean Water Rule] could have a particular negative effect on certain species because the small and intermittent waters that are the target of the repeal are often significant ecological habitat,” said Michael Gerrard, an environmental law professor at Columbia University.

Some of the nation’s birds, for example, could be at risk. According to the National Audubon Society, many of the water features covered by the Clean Water Rule are “crucially important for birds.”

Take prairie potholes, a type of wetland found mostly in the Upper Midwest. Millions of waterbirds flock to those bodies to “take advantage of the buffet available” there, said Alison Holloran, executive director of Audubon Rockies, in a recent statement.

Fish, including salmon and trout, could also be threatened.

“Salmon and trout don’t just live in big rivers and lakes, they often spawn in small streams, some of which go completely dry during the summer, and those same streams act as nurseries for young fish during the wet months,” said Rob Masonis, Trout Unlimited’s vice president of Western conservation. “If we don’t protect small headwater streams and the wetlands that feed them, we imperil our fisheries and undermine the enormous investments we have made to recover salmon and steelhead in the Pacific Northwest.”

If the Clean Water Rule is repealed, millions of acres of wetlands would no longer be under the protection of the Clean Water Act. Wetlands are among the most productive ecosystems on Earth. One-third of the country’s threatened and endangered species live only in wetlands, according to the EPA.
(credit:Getty Images)
Food safety(03 of04)
Open Image Modal
“The cheapest and most effective way to enhance water availability and ensure environmental health is source protection and preventing our water resources from further pollution and contamination,” Newsha Ajami, a hydrologist and researcher at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, told HuffPost in an email. “Water pollution can directly impact public health both in short-term and long-term. It can also ultimately impact our food chain.”

Water pollutants can affect crop production and the health of seafood and livestock. Troublingly, persistent pollutants -- those that remain active for a long time, like heavy metals and pesticides -- accumulate as they move up the food chain, Ajami explained. “This is important to us human beings since we are at the top of the food chain and bioaccumulation can ultimately impact our health and wellbeing. That is why source protection is extremely important, because it can be very hard to [get] rid of some of these chemicals and pollutants.”
(credit:Lucy Nicholson/Reuters)
Industries from farming to recreation(04 of04)
Open Image Modal
President Donald Trump has called the Clean Water Rule a threat to industry. But according to advocates, the regulation actually supports industry.

The EPA, under the Obama administration, has said that clean water is necessary for business. "Tourism, fishing, recreation, energy production, manufacturing and other industries that depend on clean water add billions of dollars to our economy every year,” the agency says in a promotional poster on its website. "Farms depend on clean water for irrigation, crops and livestock."

Despite opposition from some agricultural groups, former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said the Clean Water Rule is a boon to farmers and ranchers, not a burden. “We will protect clean water without getting in the way of farming and ranching,” McCarthy told the National Farmers Union in 2015. “Normal agriculture practices like plowing, planting, and harvesting a field have always been exempt from Clean Water Act regulation; this rule won’t change that at all.”

Recreational industries, like hunting and sport fishing, could be especially hard-hit by a Clean Water Rule repeal.

“The health of fish and wildlife habitat is the infrastructure of an outdoor recreation industry that fuels $646 billion in annual spending and supports more than 6 million American jobs,” said the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership in a statement supporting the Clean Water Rule.

"Sportsmen will not settle for watered down protections or negligence for the habitat that supports the fish and wildlife we love to pursue,” said the group's president, Whit Fosburgh.

According to the EPA, water sports like paddling could also be imperiled. Paddling is a sport enjoyed by almost 20 million people annually in the United States. Nearly $90 billion is spent on the sport each year.
(credit:Bloomberg/Getty Images)